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

[João Távora]

Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> writes:

> On 22.05.2020 17:32, João Távora wrote:
> We're talking about this issue you mentioned:
> https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/issues/363

I was talking about user reports about server bugs, but no matter we can
talk bout what you want to talk.

> The resolution there, it seems, is that the user must discover which
> data, and in which format, to add to eglot-workspace-configuration for 
> stuff to work as expected.
>
> In the meantime (as I have just found out by doing a search), lsp-rust
> both contains this setting at a reasonable default:
>
> https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-mode/blob/057e8789638a0bf493930637185694b6b09ea58e/lsp-rust.el#L267
>
> ...and exposes the possible values of this setting in a
> well-documented user option:
>
> https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-mode/blob/057e8789638a0bf493930637185694b6b09ea58e/lsp-rust.el#L185
>
> So, which of these two approaches to development does look more
> "integrated" to you?

You know the answer: the one where one does the latter in rust-mode

This x-y.el way of working where x is the extension and y is the
language is an explicit anti-goal.  I know you prefer it, you have in
company, but I don't, I don't prefer it.

Of course, as you know, the whole point of LSP to start with is to make
these obsolete.  It's not 100% there, and thus you need these
customizations (which again, should IMHO live in the major-mdoe).  But
ideally they shouln't be needed.

João