Re: PL support

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 09.05.2020 21:56, João Távora wrote:
> On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 7:44 PM Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > How would that help? Eldoc has a defined interface. If eglot-box could
> > be based on that, it could just be considered for contribution on its own.
>
> A pretty bad one, as we know.

So? Make it better. Having Eglot in there wouldn't help, since you have 
to improve the interface while keeping in mind *all* possible uses, 
existing ones and potential future ones.

> It's much better do deal with it in one
> place, Emacs, rather then the user complaining to Eglot issue tracker
> then I have to explain the problem or desired feature is in eldoc,
> then agree on an interface betweent he two files.  In Emacs I just
> submit a patch to both files and both maintainers look at it.

You would submit a patch for eldoc.el with a short description why it's 
an improvement, and that's that. Maybe link to the original report.

The first step would be necessary anyway, as a part of the bug report 
discussion.

It's not like we never have long, unproductive discussions in bug 
reports here.

> Rather what I find hard to follow is the "not in core" stance. It seems
> like you want to protect lsp-mode mode, or not condemn it to
> irrelevance.

That's some part of it, but I'm more on the side of "lean core, rich set 
of plugins" approach to Emacs architecture. So I'd rather move more 
stuff out than add to it.

Also I hate mistargeted solutions: this discussion came out of "how make 
Emacs more popular" discussion, right? Initial user experience, etc. And 
such a move will do little to help either.