Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:18:44 -0800 Chad Brown <address@hidden> wrote: 

CB> On Mar 7, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
>> Bazaar has a plugins directory; files in it are automatically activated,
>> as an example of a user-level facility like this.  Anyhow, my point is
>> that placing a file in a directory is inherently more modular and
>> convenient to the user than augmenting a single file.  Do you disagree?

CB> My point is that the user must take an explicit step to do either, and
CB> that placing a file in a magic directory and then answering questions
CB> about it (both steps are required) is significantly less convenient
CB> and equally or less modular than running an installer command.

CB> So, yes, I do disagree.  What you call `augmenting a single file' can
CB> be done with a simple, user-fiendly lisp command. The simple
CB> combination of el-get and package.el is much of the way there today.

Again you're talking about package installation.  I want to create
$LOAD_DIR/000-keys.el and have it loaded on startup.  I don't want it
installed, managed, or wrapped.  This mechanism will facilitate
bootstrapping el-get, for instance, but it will also enable users to
manage their configurations better.

CB> I think that you're conflating package.el with the (still developing)
CB> policy concerning the management of the `official' central archive for
CB> it once it's included by default. You say that you want something that
CB> `should work like package.el', but I don't see where you say what your
CB> problem with package.el is except to imply that you think some sort of
CB> overhead will be too high.

I was talking about the mechanics as far as Matt's questions: how it
behaves on --batch, etc.  I was not suggesting it should do what
package.el does in terms of functionality.

I don't have a problem with package.el.  I just don't want to have to
create a package in order to have a modular snippet as I described
above.  Why can't the two coexist?

CB> I honestly doubt that there is a lot more effort required to create
CB> something that works with package.el than there is to make a snippet
CB> that works automatically with just a simple mechanical checksum
CB> test. Put another way: I doubt that the overhead is likely to be too
CB> high for anyone who's actually creating something that wants to be
CB> shared automatically.  Put another another way, I think that the
CB> snippet of code that can't be a package or in site-lisp but that
CB> several users want to share and use automatically is really unlikely
CB> to exist.

Who said anything about sharing?  I want to break down my .emacs for
example; why can't I do it by putting 8 files in a directory instead of
writing (load...) 8 times in my .emacs?  Here's that portion of my
current .emacs:

(load "tzz.emacs.start.el")
(load "tzz.emacs.functions.el")
(load "tzz.emacs.libraries.el")
(load "tzz.emacs.colors.el")
(load "tzz.emacs.options.el")
(load "tzz.emacs.keys.el")
(load "tzz.emacs.custom.el")
(load "tzz.emacs.skeletons.el")

I want, instead, to customize load-dir to ~/emacs.d/conf.d and put those
8 files in it.

Ted