> What hostile manner?  Do we need permission from you to start discussing
> Clojure editing facilities here

You don't need my permission to do anything. But in my book it's good manners to try to get people involved in a conversation that might benefit from their presence. One day perhaps you'll learn that things happen a lot smoother if you put some minimal efforts to be more considerate when you communicate with others - a point I've been trying to make in quite a few messages. 

I'll leave most of the other points without a response, given that at this point we're not really discussing anything other than who misunderstood who, which I'm tired of. 

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023, at 12:21 AM, João Távora wrote:
> "Bozhidar Batsov" <bozhidar@batsov.dev> writes:
> 
> >  Sure I got that.  And currently CIDER is strongly coupled to
> >  implementation details of clojure-mode.
> >
> > You say it like it was some design failure,
> 
> No, I didn't.  You're again imagining things.  I'm just stating
> objective facts which are pretty relevant if one wants to add CIDER
> interoperation capability to the new major mode that is the subject of
> this thread.
> 
> > The APIs that are being used are things like "find the current Clojure
> > namespace", sexp-related functions, etc.
> 
> Yes, that's what I meant by "the existing informal API between the two
> realities: major mode and CIDER overlay minor mode".  Those things you
> mention are very similar to the coupling between SLIME/SLY and
> lisp-mode.  If someone wanted to make a new Common Lisp mode (say, a
> TreeSitter one) and they wanted to use SLY with it, the same problem
> would arise.  And yes, it is easily solved.
> 
> >  I clearly wrote about integrating with CIDER, not rewriting it.
> >  So, again, you're really reading things that I didn't write.
> >
> > Well, you did speak about RCP and there's nothing at the RCP level
> > happening between clojure-mode and CIDER. (all the RCP-related code is
> > in CIDER) The APIs that are being used are things like "find the
> > current Clojure namespace", sexp-related functions, etc.
> 
> What I wrote is that there's nothing transcendental that I can detect
> about the architecture of an RPC system for Emacs like CIDER.  There's a
> major mode, a collection of minor modes and a reflection backend in the
> host language.
> 
> > experts". I'm not an expert in LSP and I wouldn't dare to lecture you
> > how to do things in eglot, but I do know a bit about Clojure, nREPL
> > and all the Emacs packages and I happen to know what we've tried and
> > didn't work out. You want to brush this aside, for reasons that are
> > still unclear to me.
> 
> That's the thing: Noone is lecturing you on anything.  Noone's even
> asking you for anything.  If anything it's the other way round, you seem
> want us to literally sit through a lecture of yours on the subject.
> 
> >  If all this is not a paternalistic attempt at dissuasion, it's at
> >  least odd from someone who's already said he's not interested
> >  in contributing to this endeavor, and who's not really being
> >  asked to anymore.
> >
> > What "endeavour" is that exactly? Bringing
> > clojure-mode/clojure-ts-mode to core or replacing them with 2 lines of
> > code?
> 
> Writing a new major mode, of course, a direct:
> 
> * consequence of Richard's request
> * your refusal to integrate clojure-mode or clojure-ts-mode
> * Philip's interesting suggestion
> 
> It's the top message of this discussion, have you read it?  And yes it's
> two lines of code, but you have to start somewhere and that's what I
> did.  TreeSitter could also be useful later on, for font-locking, etc...
> 
> > And who started the conversation in a hostile manner?  If I didn't
> > happen to be subscribed to emacs-devel I wouldn't even know what was
> > being discussed here, given how events unfolded. Is it really
> > surprising I'd be unhappy about the communication on the topic so far?
> 
> What hostile manner?  Do we need permission from you to start discussing
> Clojure editing facilities here?
> 
> João
> 
>