[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#65519: 30.0.50; [FR Eglot] keymaps for useful functions
From: |
João Távora |
Subject: |
bug#65519: 30.0.50; [FR Eglot] keymaps for useful functions |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Aug 2023 10:37:23 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com> writes:
> There are some useful eglot functions that can currently only invoked
> with M-x, by default. I'm currently defining a keymap
>
> (define-keymap :prefix 'my-eglot-bindings
> "a" 'eglot-code-actions
> "f" 'eglot-format
> "h" 'eglot-inlay-hints-mode
> "r" 'eglot-rename)
>
> that I bind to a a prefix key in c-mode-common-hook.
I think this is a fine way to go about it.
> Feature request: Could eglot-mode do something like that?
This request comes up often. The reason Eglot does this is partly
answered in the top bullet of eglot.el's description:
;; * Eglot's main job is to hook up the information that language
;; servers offer via LSP to Emacs's UI facilities: Xref for
;; definition-chasing, Flymake for diagnostics, Eldoc for at-point
;; documentation, etc. Eglot's job is generally *not* to provide
;; such a UI itself, though a small number of simple
;; counter-examples do exist, e.g. in the `eglot-rename' command or
;; the `eglot-inlay-hints-mode' minor mode. When a new UI is
;; evidently needed, consider adding a new package to Emacs, or
;; extending an existing one.
So this is how Eglot wants to sell itself: to be a low-profile
middle-man between Emacs and LSP. It doesn't always work and people
understandibly want Eglot to be more of a front-man.
I try to resist this temptation as much as possible because that leads
to bloat and duplicated functionality with idiosyncractic interfaces.
So I always push for other "standard" packages to provide the UI. But
as you can see in those 4 examples, I ended up being pragmatic and
putting the command in Eglot itself.
But it's not unthinkable (in fact, it's desired I think and I've looked
into it) that 'eglot-format' simply dissolves into Emacs's longstanding
'indent.el' machinery. And there's some talk of a "refactoring
interface" for Emacs in emacs-devel (I think). So that's where
'eglot-code-actions' and 'eglot-rename' should really live.
In short, I think it's OK to be pragmatic. Why not make a
eglot-bindings.el package?
João