Re: dash.el [was: Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs]

[Phillip Lord]

address@hidden (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:

>    (defun switch-a-3 ()
>      (interactive)
>      (--> (m-buffer-match (current-buffer) "a")
>         (-take 2 it)
>         (m-buffer-replace-match it "x")))
>
> How does that even the same thing as:
>
>   (save-excursion
>     (while (re-search-forward "foo[ \t]+bar" nil t)
>       (replace-match "foobar")))
>
> is beyond me.  And I think that applies to the majority of Emacs Lisp
> users, -->, m-buffer-match, m-buffer-replace-match say nothing, they
> do not even suggest what they do.

m-buffer-match returns the matches in the buffer as a
list. m-buffer-replace-match replaces those matches with the
placement. -take takes the first two elements from a list. I agree -->
doesn't tell you much -- it's a threading macro.


>    It's not a bad metric either! Yes, there are many people
>    downloading
>
> It is a terrible metric, Emacs isn't a popularity contest.

So I have heard.

>    > And even so, it doesn't automatically mean that it would be a good
>    > addition to Emacs -- such things shouldn't be decided only based on
>    > popularity.
>
>    Happy to hear the criteria that you would apply.
>
> The same critera that is used when anything is added to Emacs.  I
> think that has and is working well, people give their input, you try
> to convince the maintainer(s) that it makes sense and follows their
> idea of what is "Emacs', and it gets added to Emacs if so.

Quite clearly, dash has and is working well because as 10% of MELPA uses
it. Dash have taken lots of input (indeed, the size of the contributor
list is what has caused problems with ELPA and FSF copyright
policy). Your last criteria doesn't help at all, just begs the question
of what criteria the maintainer(s) use.

Phil