Re: Extending define-derived-mode

[Yuan Fu]

> On May 29, 2023, at 10:51 PM, Theodor Thornhill <theo@thornhill.no> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 30 May 2023 07:16:49 CEST, Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When we were adding tree-sitter modes a couple of month ago, it was
>> clear that the current major mode model needs some upgrade, I’d like
>> to discuss the things we need and how can we address them.
> 
> Thanks for bringing this up!
> 
> I'll quickly just add one more thing, and respond more thoroughly in a 
> different mail:
> 
> 
> Maybe we can consider another abstraction to cover the following:
> 
> - configure what set of modes to use for a given language
> - set choice of diagnostic tool (flymake/flycheck etc)
> - set LSP client implementation with config to use
> - project based configs
> - separate mode name and implementation
> 
> I posted some time ago a simple idea covering this, and maybe the time is now 
> to revisit this idea? People seem to like doom Emacs/spacemacs etc, so their 
> idea of "layers" may be a nice route to consider.
> 
> We can supply some DSL with preconfigured settings, and add extensible 
> functionalities.
> 
> Maybe something like:
> 
> (define-layer 'javascript-mode
>  :mode 'treesit
>  :enabled-in '(".js", ".mjs")
>  :diagnostic-backend 'flymake
>  :lsp-client 'lsp-mode ;; default is 'eglot
>  :project '(:root-function #'some-rootfinder-fn)
>  :other-stuff '(eslint json-something nvm))
> 
> This may seem only tangentially related to your email, but I believe it is, 
> in that mode inheritance touches the "the first language mode implementation 
> owns the namespace"-problem.

Yeah this look interesting. From your example it looks more like a 
configuration oriented, like a more integrated use-package. I feel like we 
should solve the "the first language mode implementation owns the 
namespace”-problem in a more direct and standalone way.

Yuan