On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 12:33 AM Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
On 08/11/2023 02:21, João Távora wrote:
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 11:18 PM Dmitry Gutov<dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
Joao didn't want to have such definitions in Xref. I'm still on the
fence, personally.
What don't I want? I haven't read this wordy subthread but it seems
Eshel is proposing exactly what I changed in xref-find-extra: take "kind"
as argument.
Sorry: you didn't want those definitions in _Eglot_. Not in Xref, that
was a mistype.
Ah. Well, first, it a fact that I _have_ them in Eglot, and I'll
keep having them, because they've been there a long time.
And it's not really relevant that I didn't _want_ them. If I had
the choice back then between recommending existing xref commands
and adding new commands to Eglot, of course I wouldn't have added
them. But I hadn't, so I did. Pretty simple. So I don't understand
the argument you're making against Eshel's and my suggestion.
Or it would be nice to hear from someone who have tried out Eglot's
integration and found more upsides there.
If you want that to happen, the only realistic way to have good
feedback from anyone else other than emacs-devel nerds like me and you
is to release an Eglot version with this feature, which we can change
later (even non-backward-compatibly, within a reasonable time frame).
That seems like a last-resort type of approach, for this particular
discussion.
Not really, just being pragmatic and suggesting a way for you to
get the opinions from Eglot users that you wrote you wanted. There
isn't a significant amount of engaged Eglot users in this discussion
that are going to try the patch.