Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs

[조성빈]

João Távora <address@hidden> 작성:

> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:18 PM 조성빈 <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > > a fine manual.  I like Emacs because it respects people's
> > > established workflows, and allows for programmers
> > > to build on it, so they can use whatever workflow they
> > > prefer.
> > Really? This whole mail thread’s 80% is about why just usual
> > prefix-searching isn’t good and you should use ‘C-h <something>’
> > in order to search for a function.
>
> You're confused and should read the thread.  I was not
> talking about prefix-searching.  My workflow doesn't use
> prefix searching (anymore) I use "flex". But I haven't impinged
> my  workflow on other people.  Well I lie.  I do so on occasion,
> because I think it's cool. But I'm not going to _force_ it on
> other people.

I’m not saying only about completion - I was thinking about things
like how C-h f isn’t really useful for function finding and we
should use C-h a and C-h d. And arguably emacs lisp function names
are forcing us to use them. How should an Emacs user fix one’s
init.el in Vim because his init.el is broken to make Emacs not
work? (And let’s not say emacs -Q is the answer, because it’s just
one example. Just think that he/she doesn’t want to use emacs -Q
because it litters *~ files in the file system.)

> > It’s not ruby-esque, mind you - it’s consistency, that almost
> > every language aims to be. I can’t understand why you’re keep
> > calling it as ‘ruby’ or something implying that it’s something
> > new that doesn’t work with Emacs.
>
> I was answering Philippe, and he mentioned earlier that he's
> a big fan of "Convention over Configuration" a philosophy
> popularized in the 2000's by the RoR community.

I can’t see why CoC applies here - function names aren’t
‘configuration’, right? - AFAIK CoC is something like sensible
defaults which, while Emacs have a long way to get some more
sensible defaults IMO, is for another thread.

(BTW, while the term CoC was coined by RoR, there are various
 similar concepts that existed before that - it’s not something
 RoR has invented.)

> He's also
> mentioned he has done Ruby. As have I, and I have nothing
> against it, quite the contrary.  Pretty nice language.  And I
> also love the API lists and the naming consistency there.
>
> > Something implying that it’s something new that doesn’t
> > work with Emacs.
>
> Quite the contrary. I'm trying to convince you that it can
> work with closer to that if you work towards it without
> futzing up other people's, equally legitimate, ways of
> thinking about symbol names.

Actually, IMO that ways of thinking symbol names should be
codified and be recommended - could you help in making some
emacs lisp API guidelines with that knowledge?

> Hey, if Emacs had Common
> Lisp, you could probably program the reader and put most
> of Ruby itself in Elisp if you wanted to. Proper namespaces,
> manual-extracted  API lists, existing completion styles, new
> completion styles. All  these things would go a long way before
> you take the thickest brush to a 40-year old painstakingly
> crafted painting.  A living painting, yes and never finished,
> just like a real one, but still.
>
> João Távora