Re: Renaming eglot -- or at least add an alias?

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > > I am reputed to be good at that.  nstead of telling me how hopeless it
  > > is, which won't convince me, how about telling me what Eglot does?
  > > Then we'll see if I come up with a more descriptive name.
  > >
  > No, I'm not the one pushing for the change.

I am not "pushing for the change" regardless of all advantages and
disadvantages.  Rather, I am pushing to look for possible better
names, and then make a decision based on what we will have found.

Isn't that clearly the right thing to do?  Won't you help us do it?

If we find no better name than "Eglot", we will use that one.  But we
should make a real try to find one.

    It is your responsibility to
  > actually understand what eglot is if your going to argue the name needs
  > changing.

That is a strange claim to make.  I argued that the name Eglot has a
specific disadvantage: that it doesn't mean anything to people like me
who don't know what the package does.

For that point, of all points, I don't have a "rasponsibility to
understand what Eglot is."

But I do need to understand roughly what Eglot does in order to look
for possible better names.

I thank Po Lu for posting that:

    It uses an external program speaking the language server protocol to
    provide completion-at-point and cross-referencing (think
    xref-find-references and xref-find-definitions.)

This says that Eglot uses the language server for two very specific jobs.

Does Eglot define its own commands to complete and/or find referencs,
or does it hook into other commands which do those jobs so that they
can make use of the language server data to do them?

Then you posted about some other things it does:

  > - code snippets

(I know what a "snippet" might be, but I have no idea what action this
means.)

  > - code diagnostics and linting

(Likewise, I don't quite understand this as an action.)

  > - enhanced documentation and feeds into eldoc
  > - provide code actions to fix diagnostic/linter errors or suggest code
  >   refactoring 
  > - hovering over symbols provides function signatures/documentation
  > - symbol renaming and other refactoring support

This gives me the idea that Eglot causes various parts of Emacs to take
advantage of parsing the file's language in order to do their jobs
better.  Is that basically right?

Does Eglot aim to make use of parsing in all the Emacs features
where it could be of use?

If these two are correct, then I think I have an idea.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)