[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations
From: |
Emanuel Berg |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Nov 2013 05:24:36 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux) |
Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:
>> Has anyone already come up with a name for large
>> customizations? I've noticed a number of efforts to
>> significantly customize Emacs in a way that other
>> people can readily use. ...
>
> I remember Alan Mackenzie use the word 'emacsicality'.
I still don't understand what a "large customization"
is, or is supposed to be. If it is just about anything
you could put in your initialization files, I don't
think you should be over-eager to group those things
together because just because one person put them
there doesn't mean they relate to each other.
For example, I just wrote this:
(defun describe-variable-short (var)
(interactive "vVariable: ")
(message (format "%s: %s" (symbol-name var) (symbol-value var))) )
That is something that is 100% general, and if that
isn't in Emacs already (and I overlooked it) without
false modesty, it should be added.
On the other hand, I also just wrote:
(defun cpp-switch-to-body-or-header-file ()
(interactive)
(let ((is-body (string= (file-name-extension (buffer-name)) "cpp"))
(file-name-no-extension (file-name-sans-extension (buffer-name))))
(find-file
(format "%s/%s" default-directory
(if is-body
(format "include/%s.hh" file-name-no-extension)
(format "../%s.cpp" file-name-no-extension) )))))
While that is as general (to the C++ programmer), not
all C++ programmers organize their include files in
that way. Then again, programmers are probably more
than capable of setting a pair of paths...
Last, and less (not at all) general, is
(eval-after-load 'cc-mode
'(define-key c++-mode-map "\C-o;" 'cpp-switch-to-body-or-header-file) )
(global-set-key "\C-hV" 'describe-variable-short)
which obviously is just about how I like my keys, and
that's it.
Instead of creating Emacs distributions, we should
filter each such "distribution" for what is general and
what is not. What is general (and *good*) should be
improved, documented, tested, and put into
libraries. What is not general but *does* fit together
- I mean, it could be put together into a "taste" or
"flavor" package if that is a game anyone enjoys, but
to perfect and communicate the really useful stuff is
much more important.
--
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united: http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
- Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations, (continued)
- Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations, Peter Dyballa, 2013/11/26
- Message not available
- Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations, Rustom Mody, 2013/11/28
- Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations,
Emanuel Berg <=
- Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations, Rustom Mody, 2013/11/29
- Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations, Emanuel Berg, 2013/11/29
- Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations, Jambunathan K, 2013/11/30
- Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations, Jambunathan K, 2013/11/30
- Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations, Jambunathan K, 2013/11/30
- Message not available
- Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations, Emanuel Berg, 2013/11/30
- Message not available
- Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations, Emanuel Berg, 2013/11/30
- Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations, Emanuel Berg, 2013/11/30
- Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations, Yuri Khan, 2013/11/29
- Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations, Jambunathan K, 2013/11/29