Re: dash.el [was: Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs]

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 22.05.2020 17:32, João Távora wrote:
> > > > Meanwhile, lsp-mode developers will address similar reports directly,
> > > > without footballing the users.
> > > They regularly solve LSP server bugs in lsp-mode? Very bad
> > > idea. Relying
> > > on features is one thing, relying on bugs is another thing entirely.
> > Did that report concern a bug in a language server? It didn't look
> > that way to me.
> I wasn't speaking of any particular one. I was telling how we work with
> Eglot users that report server bugs to us.  You talked about
> "footballing users" and how lsp-mode adress them "directly".  I assumed
> that means they hack lsp-mode.el of lsp-foo.el to work around server
> bugs, but I really have no idea.  In fact I don't know what we're
> talking about anymore, I have to admit.

We're talking about this issue you mentioned: 
https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/issues/363

The resolution there, it seems, is that the user must discover which 
data, and in which format, to add to eglot-workspace-configuration for 
stuff to work as expected.

In the meantime (as I have just found out by doing a search), lsp-rust 
both contains this setting at a reasonable default:

https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-mode/blob/057e8789638a0bf493930637185694b6b09ea58e/lsp-rust.el#L267

...and exposes the possible values of this setting in a well-documented 
user option:

https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-mode/blob/057e8789638a0bf493930637185694b6b09ea58e/lsp-rust.el#L185

So, which of these two approaches to development does look more 
"integrated" to you?