On Fri, Sep 1, 2023, 9:13 AM Danny Freeman <danny@dfreeman.email> wrote:
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:14:21 +0300
>> Cc: rms@gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev>
>>
>> But we don't always agree between ourselves. Not on this subject anyway.
>
> Those disagreements are not relevant when the issue is the inclusion
> of a package in core.
I'd like to think I have the best interests of Emacs at heart, both as
someone who has contributed a handful bug fixes to the core, as a
clojure developer in my day job, and as the maintainer of
clojure-ts-mode.
With that in mind, I won't stand in the way of a new clojure editing
mode for Emacs, in fact I suggested enabling lisp mode for clojure files
somewhere else in this thread. However, I will advocate for not
hijacking the name clojure-mode that has been in active use for 15
years.
I don't think using the term "hijacking" is productive. The GNU emacs developers could well say that using a standard functional name like "clojure-mode" with no intent to contribute it to the core was the "hijacking", or perhaps namespace-squatting. It would be different for "cider" or another non-standard, nonfunctional name. It should have been obvious at the time clojure-mode was originally authored that the name would have been adopted for a builtin mode if there were going to be one.
Lynn