From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A proposal for a friendlier Emacs Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 23:38:06 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4be18b5f-dc07-2703-a2de-1ed08916ebdf@gmail.com> <1e340d941b6fd0b21a477f39fc935468@condition-alpha.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2489"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alexander Adolf Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 22 05:38:40 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kKZ8Z-0000Zb-Cu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 05:38:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54964 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kKZ8Y-00044i-FK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 23:38:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54760) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kKZ83-0003eh-Qu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 23:38:07 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:41812) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kKZ83-000683-Cn; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 23:38:07 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kKZ82-0006WS-H0; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 23:38:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1e340d941b6fd0b21a477f39fc935468@condition-alpha.com> (message from Alexander Adolf on Mon, 21 Sep 2020 22:00:21 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:256307 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > As your config evolves, the next question everyone will be asking > themselves is "custom.el or init file?" It is possible to use both -- so why do people believe they have to choose one or the other? > Here is what I observed: when I start adding a new class of use-cases > (example: email), I start out with a single package, that does most of > what I want/need. We use multiple definitions of "package" in connection with Emacs. Would you please say what definition you're using here? For instance, does "package" include Rmail? > Within this config file, I keep the setting for each package in a > different section (separated by comments). Could Configure do this automatically? Would that require additional data about relationships between various things? > Again, in my ideal world, each package would be classified into exactly > one main category (email, content completion, etc.). In principle, I think this is a good idea. However, think it should NOT be limited to ELPA packages. Also, I have a feeling that users won't all agree how to classify packages. I expect there will be overlapping categories that make sense. So I think we need to make provision for having one package that fits into multiple categories. Perhaps by asking the user which category to think of this package in. -- Dr Richard Stallman Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)