Re: NonGNU ELPA (was: Re: Fwd: How do I go about debugging my Elisp code?)

[Emanuel Berg]

Jean Louis wrote:

>> I think we did this at least once before so the packs
>> should be ready formally, however if they aren't do tell
>> and I'll be happy to use the hjälpsam assistant :)
>
> Hjälpsam was written especially for you. 😛

Thanks a lot, love it :)

> Of course, you write email to emacs-devel@gnu.org with the
> subject: [ELPA] new package buc.el
>
> and then make sure you submit papers to assign copyrights to
> FSF, they will protect it hopefully, even if you become
> unavailable in some far Asian country.

Hm ... not sure it is that easy but if so, sure, they can have
whatever licence, I'm happy that you picked buc.el as the
example since it is maybe the most creative package and also
one that (A) has a ideology or philosophy but just as well
(B) is applicable and solves a practical situation _and_
(A) and (B) are in congruence with each other. Not easy to do!
And TBH I don't know if I managed a lot of times apart
from that. I don't remember why it is called "buc" tho,
"buffer cache" maybe or it refers to the US (German) writer
Charles "Buk" Bukowski ...

> ;; Copyright (C) 2021 by Emanuel Berg (incal) <moasenwood@zoho.eu>

Yeah, but you don't need that, just the licence, right?

> ;; Author: Emanuel Berg (incal) <moasenwood@zoho.eu>
> ;; Version: 2.3.7.

Yuk, a dot?

> ;; Package-Requires:
> ;; Change Log:

Waat, if the header isn't there that should imply nothing!

I can add a Change Log when there are changes, if they are big
but I don't think that'll happen. Besides should you really
hard-code that, isn't that what you have repositories, VCSs,
etc, for?

Really interesting and unusual/exotic history items I'd gladly
add tho but that won't happen, well, one can hope it will ;)

Nike's wings and pandora's box ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqM9P4TdA7E

> ;; This file is not part of GNU Emacs.
>
> ;; This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
> ;; modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> ;; published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the
> ;; License, or (at your option) any later version.
> ;;
> ;; This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
> ;; WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> ;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
> ;; General Public License for more details.
> ;;
> ;; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> ;; along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

Again is this an Emacs convention or is it mandatory for
the license?

If it is needed to put the code somewhere (anywhere), I'll be
happy to add it, of course, otherwise I think it is just bulky
and doesn't contribute anything interesting. My code should be
fit for a particular purpose! Still, it's OK to put it like
that, it doesn't change the quality of the code. Mere words ...

> ;;; Commentary [...]

Please read the documentation and see if it can be improved as
well, as I'm sure it can!

>> Here are 9 Elisp packs (including 1 major mode for editing
>> code)
>> 
>>   https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-packs/
>
> Call it "packages" please.

It's just the directory ...

And long words like length, width, packages, directories are
much harder to spell/type than len, w, packs, dirs, so in
everything computers (i.e., what we are doing now is not
computers but humans) but with everything computers I think
short forms should be favored ("prev" is can also be aligned
with "next", but "previous" can't; "beg" is much shorter and
easier/faster to spell/type than beginning, and it can be
aligned with "end"; and so on).

Lisp is super-verbose as it is! Everything to make it shorter
and faster is good: str (not string), col (column), buf
(buffer), sjl (Super Jean Louis) ...

I'm not saying we should change `previous-line' to "prev-line"
but actually yes, if I implemented a Lisp dialect I'd be
`prev-line' (maybe `backward-char' would be `prev-char' for
consistency, it is also clearer, in that case tho I don't know
what gain calling it `back-char' would be, not increased
clarity anyway :)) - what one can do now is aliases, I guess,
with respect to that -

  (defalias 'prev-line #'previous-line)

but what should do even more is not do it like `defalias' has
it, namely

  (defalias SYMBOL DEFINITION &optional DOCSTRING)

it should be

  (defalias SYM DEF &optional DOCSTR)

IMO!

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal