On Wed, Nov 8, 2023, 16:40 Spencer Baugh <sbaugh@janestreet.com> wrote:

> João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 11:18 PM Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
> >> What I meant is, using it with the Elisp implementation didn't
> >> convince me of the usefulness of the feature. Perhaps you disagree?
> >>
> >> Or it would be nice to hear from someone who have tried out Eglot's
> >> integration and found more upsides there.
> >
> > If you want that to happen, the only realistic way to have good
> > feedback from anyone else other than emacs-devel nerds like me and you
> > is to release an Eglot version with  this feature, which we can change
> > later (even non-backward-compatibly, within a reasonable time frame).
>
> I tried the Eglot integration, my comments elsewhere are inspired by
> that.
>

Can you point me to this "elsewhere"?

>
> I found it rather clumsy out of the box.


What exactly is clumsy? Please state the command you used and what the
clumsy effects were.

However, it works well with an
> approach of adding bindings for individual kinds, as is currently how I
> (and other Eglot users at Jane Street, and presumably most other Eglot
> users everywhere) use Eglot.  So that compatibility with an
> already-common approach is an upside of this integration.
>

Bindings to what commands exactly?

However, the alternative UI which shows all kinds of definitions in a
> single buffer does not exist for Eglot in the same way it exists for
> Elisp.  So... I can't really compare it to that.
>

What "alternative UI" are you talking about exactly? How can I trigger it
for Elisp? Please give a full example as I don't know what you are taking
about.

Thanks!
João

>