El 29/10/24 a las 12:24, Philip Kaludercic escribió:
> Mariano Montone<marianomontone@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> El 29/10/24 a las 12:03, Philip Kaludercic escribió:
>>> My main question, which I realised too late when reading the code, is if
>>> you could rework this to integrate into existing instances of
>>> `make-progress-reporter', just replacing the UI.  It seems like it would
>>> be more effective and consistent, and avoid hard dependencies of
>>> programs that want to use `dotimes-with-progress-bar' (or as I renamed
>>> it `progress-bar-dotimes' to avoid namespace clashes), when
>>> `dotimes-with-progress-reporter' already exists and is being used.
>> Oh. Thanks for the patch! I'll look at it.
> Just keep in mind that it is not a patch, it is just a convenient way to
> suggest changes and add comments.
Yes.
>> The integration part is in progress-bar-integrations.el. How does it
>> looks to you?
> Oh, I missed that.  My main issue is that this mixes both the
> `progress-reporter-do-update' integration with other advice on functions
> like `package-upgrade-all'.  I think having a global minor mode would be
> the right approach, instead of advising on the top-level.
>
> Generally it would be neat if we could find a solution that would avoid
> the need for advice, but I don't see a clean way to do that right now.
> Would you be interested in preparing a patch for subr.el that would make
> progress-reporters more flexible?

Yes, but I would need more precise explanations from you on your idea of 
how to do it.

         Mariano