Re: Externalising 'eglot-server-programs'

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
>> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 22:23:12 +0000
>> 
>> 
>> I have been wondering why all the language servers are currently listed
>> in 'eglot-server-programs'?  Isn't it usually the responsibility of a
>> major mode to integrate and configure generic functionality (Imenu,
>> CAPF, Xref, Outline, Font-Lock, ...) for a language?  Would it be
>> imaginable to move towards the expectation that major modes and their
>> packages update 'eglot-server-programs', just like they update
>> 'auto-mode-alist'?
>
> We should keep in mind that Eglot is also available from ELPA, so it
> cannot necessarily rely on what major modes in core do, because
> 3rd-party major modes might not do that.
>
> Also, I don't see what possible harm could be caused by having all the
> known servers listed in that variable.

It is not so much harm, but just that it is easier for a the maintainers
of a major mode to evaluate and perhaps change anything related to the
LSP server configuration, than if they have to make the change in some
other project (in this case emacs.git).  I'd also guess that people
maintaining a specific major mode have more experience and are better at
testing edge-cases specific to a language{,server} than the average
Emacs developer.

> Adding João to the discussion.
>
>

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic on peregrine