[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: more on anything.el inclusion
From: |
Ted Zlatanov |
Subject: |
Re: more on anything.el inclusion |
Date: |
Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:53:18 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:27:45 -0400 MON KEY <address@hidden> wrote:
MK> Maybe Icicles and Antyhing code/features could/should be merged before
MK> inclusion in Emacs.
MK> FTR I use neither Anything nor Icicles and couldn't endorse either
MK> from experience. However, I have watched the progress of their
MK> respective development with interest.
I used both anything.el and Icicles for a long time (though I stopped
using Icicles a year ago). They can't be merged. At best you can pick
features from both.
MK> It is wrongheaded to arbitrarily incorporate external packages which
MK> duplicate existing core behaviour/features such that the duplication
MK> of the new (however useful) is better positioned to becomes the norm
MK> simply by virtue of the pain imposed on emacs-devels to retrofit a
MK> core API after the fact.
I disagree with your phrasing ("arbitrarily" and "duplication" in
particular) and your conclusions.
MK> IOW lets say anything.el were to be included in Emacs and it became so
MK> widely adopted that it was deemed worthwhile to attempt a retroactive
MK> metaleval API (including C primitives). Were Stefan or some other
MK> devel to endeavor implementation of such an API they might be hard
MK> pressed to maintain backwards compatibility with the existing
MK> anything.el procedures and prob. alienate the primary anything.el user
MK> base to boot.
Well, that's why I asked Stefan what his decision was. If he says "no"
that's fine. I think he can judge the effort and significance of an
alternative to the standard completion mechanism.
Ted
- Re: more on anything.el inclusion, (continued)
Re: more on anything.el inclusion, Stefan Monnier, 2010/07/04
Re: more on anything.el inclusion, MON KEY, 2010/07/10