Re: [STUMP] A stumpwm's module

[Diogo F. S. Ramos]

Daimrod <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden (Diogo F. S. Ramos) writes:
>
>> Max Mikhanosha <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>>> Unfortunately, by doing all this, I couldn't directly access a function
>>>> called `bar', which is not exported by stumpwm, so I had to use `::'. It
>>>> looks like a good symbol to export to me.
>>>
>>> stumpwm export list is IMHO stale, and its impossible to extend it
>>> well without using internal symbols, so I see absolutely no problem with 
>>> that.
>>
>> Hum, that's unfortunate.
>>
>> I think that a nice set of exported symbols would be nice. Of course,
>> it's much easier said than done.
>
> Maybe we could use the two packages #:stumpwm and #:stuwmpm-user by
> exporting a small set of symbols in #:stumpwm-user required to use and
> configure it and a larger set in #:stumpwm to develop modules with it.
>
> Currently, the #:stuwmpwm-user package doesn't contain any symbols and
> is only used by two modules.
>
> Ofc to minimize the amount of change required we could simply add
> another package like #:stumpwm-dev.

Well, as said earlier, I'm not a maintainer, but I don't see a reason to
divide the symbols in different packages. It might create confusion by
having to decide in which package a symbol should be exported and it's
very likely that a "module" will have to use symbols exported by more
than one package.

I've been making more changes to pavol thanks to the great ideas of
Scott and some bug reports and I didn't had to call stumpwm's internals
more than the `bar' function. Granted, pavol doesn't have even a page of
code, but still.

-- 
Diogo F. S. Ramos