Re: Renaming eglot -- or at least add an alias?

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > So, at least in principle, the functionalities based on these two
  > could overlap.  If that is indeed so, we'd need to decide whether we
  > support the overlapping functionalities or use each one of these
  > packages for capabilities that are disjoint, whereby each
  > functionality is supported by the package that does it best (for some
  > value of "best").

I suggest that we define the principal user interface to enable or
disable the user-level features, not the implementation mechanisms.

We could have a way to enable or disable multiple user-level features
at once, and/or ways to enable or disable specific user-level features
one by one.  But they should not be tied to implementation mechanisms.

Of course, we can offer the user additional control over which
implementation mechanisms to use for this or that.  If it is not too
hard or worth the trouble, why not?  But such fine control should be
for those who want to be wizards.

People who just want some smarter editing features should not need to
know what is implemented by Eglot, what is implemented by Tree-sitter,
and what is implemented in some other way.

A few weeks ago, I expected we would want to have an Eglot manual, but
now I think that is the wrong way to organize our documentation.  We
should organize it by functionalities, each functionality described in
its proper place in the Emacs manual.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)