Hi again Ralf, From: Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Style system Was: Inconsistency in loading/saving .el files Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 19:02:52 +0200
> * Pierre Lorenzon (2008-05-17) writes: > > > From: David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> So at the current point of time, I would prefer not having this > >> dependency. > > AOL > > > OK clear ! But I don't know if I will be courageous enough to > > write a reimplementation of the style system without > > eieio. If you tell me in few months that eieio is definitely > > not acceptable I'll probably try to convert my code. > > I can tell you now that at least for me it is definitely not acceptable. > The code in AUCTeX should be easily maintainable by anyone familiar with > plain Emacs Lisp. Having to learn the workings of something like eieio > would add another barrier for understanding the code. > > You haven't explained for what purpose you need and object-oriented > approach. If it is only for data structures you could use > plists. A object oriented code is more or less reimplentable without objects. So I think I'll implement both versions of the code. But I still think that a :name tag in a defclass is more readable than a (defconst name 0) and then (nth name wathever). You might say as well that common lisp is not really emacs lisp and that all the dolist in the code might be implemented in terms of mapcar except if did not read the code carefully enough (wath is always possible !). Once more I think that object oriented code is easier to read and lighter and then to maintain but once more it might be only my own opinion. Anyway a non eieio version of the stuff will exist ! Regards Pierre _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
