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

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

[Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 552 bytes --]

> On 5. Oct 2022, at 17:08, Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>   It provides LSP client services to several Emacs features, yes.
>   Having a client without this glue would be much less useful, because
>   it would mean we'd need to develop that ourselves.

would lsp-glue describe it better?

-- 
Fragen sind nicht da um beantwortet zu werden,
Fragen sind da um gestellt zu werden
Georg Kreisler

Headaches with a Juju log:
unit-basic-16: 09:17:36 WARNING juju.worker.uniter.operation we should run
a leader-deposed hook here, but we can't yet

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1622 bytes --]

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

[Jean Louis]

* Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez <paaguti@gmail.com> [2022-10-06 09:59]:
> > On 5. Oct 2022, at 17:08, Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> >   It provides LSP client services to several Emacs features, yes.
> >   Having a client without this glue would be much less useful, because
> >   it would mean we'd need to develop that ourselves.
> 
> would lsp-glue describe it better?

lsp-client is meaningful as Eglot is already described as "A client
for Language Server Protocol servers".

In hacker's world inventing package names is not an easy task. Though
it is important to understand that well named packages and functions
contribute to popularity and usage in the world.

See: https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot

Myself personally, I did not find it appealing that I have to know
various spell checking commands on the system, like ispell, aspell,
but same is valid for many system commands, packages and similar.

In general, we have to think that package names were historically
limited in length and people had to be creative.

Today, we don't have limited computers.

My vision is that package names shall be totally descriptive. Their
underlying files and file locations shall not and need not be visible
to users.

One shall be able to install packages in the manner that does not talk
about their abbreviated names. What is package description it should
be the package name.

M-x package-install shall thus accept the description and not only
shortcut or short and not understandable package name.

cpio-mode? dismal? ebdb? evil? sesman? pyim? rubocop? eglot?

I beg your pardon, but that is not human friendly.

In my completion functions I am always using long descriptive names of
elementary objects. Sometimes those objects can be of same name, in
that case they are concatenated to their parents, groups, categories,
for better distinction. And I use their ID numbers.

The eglot entry in a completion function could look like:

M-x package-install RET:

A client for Language Server Protocol servers by João Távora [eglot]:

That way user would get clarity what it is about. The abbreviated name
may be parsed by function to understand which package to install.

Multiple entries become possible:

A client for Language Server Protocol servers by João Távora [eglot]:
A client for Language Server Protocol servers by Joe Doe [lsp-client]:
A client for Language Server Protocol servers by Minime [lsp-mode]:

 
-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

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

[Rudolf Adamkovič]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> cpio-mode? dismal? ebdb? evil? sesman? pyim? rubocop? eglot?

Also, we should eradicate the "i fetish".  The "i" in "isearch" stands
for "incremental", the "i" in "imenu" stands for "item", and the "i" in
"ispell" stands for "interactive", etc.  What does "ibuffer" do?  How
about "ielm"?  The same applies to "e" fetish.

Rudy
-- 
"'Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.  That's logic.'"
-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, 1871/1872

Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis@me.com> [he/him]
Studenohorská 25
84103 Bratislava
Slovakia

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

[Philip Kaludercic]

Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis@me.com> writes:

> Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
>
>> cpio-mode? dismal? ebdb? evil? sesman? pyim? rubocop? eglot?
>
> Also, we should eradicate the "i fetish".  The "i" in "isearch" stands
> for "incremental", the "i" in "imenu" stands for "item", and the "i" in
> "ispell" stands for "interactive", etc.  What does "ibuffer" do?  How
> about "ielm"?  The same applies to "e" fetish.

I still think it is preferable to add a single letter to an actual
word than make up a new one.

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

[Akib Azmain Turja]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 631 bytes --]

Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez <paaguti@gmail.com> writes:

>> On 5. Oct 2022, at 17:08, Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>   It provides LSP client services to several Emacs features, yes.
>>   Having a client without this glue would be much less useful, because
>>   it would mean we'd need to develop that ourselves.
>
> would lsp-glue describe it better?

I don't think so.  It's too similar to lsp-mode.

-- 
Akib Azmain Turja

Find me on Mastodon at @akib@hostux.social.

This message is signed by me with my GnuPG key.  Its fingerprint is:

    7001 8CE5 819F 17A3 BBA6  66AF E74F 0EFA 922A E7F5

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]