Re: Split off some backends from Company?

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

On 08/14/2014 07:07 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> I see what you mean, but why does this need another package?
>>> It seems the code could/should be in yasnippet, controlled by
>>> something like a minor-mode.
>> It could be in yasnippet, but then it would implicitly depend on Company
>> anyway.
>
> You mean it can't be a completion-at-point-function?

Not a useful one, no. Like mentioned, company-yasnippet's candidates 
list not exhaustive (in terms of things, in general, that the user would 
usually want to see completed), so it's won't be a good completion 
function by itself.

>> Further, there is a convention in the third-party developer community of not
>> doing too much in autoloads ("installing the package shouldn't turn it on",
>> or something along these lines).
>
> That's true as well.  Of course "turn it on" is not always as clear-cut
> as it sounds.  Adding oneself to company-backend might be seen as "turn
> it on", but if you consider that it's only actually used if you do
> enable company and if you use the appropriate major mode (or compiler
> backend, or snippet library, ...), then you may decide that it's not
> really "turned on".

Ok, that makes sense. But anyway, the above convention is only a 
secondary consideration, as far as I'm concerned.

> To the extent that ELPA packages are normally installed by the end user
> (my install.el package distinguished "system install" from "user
> install" but package.el doesn't really provide much support for
> system-wide installs, thjo it doesn't actively prevent them), I think
> it's not that bad if installing a package also turns it on.

Agreed.