[email protected] writes:
I greatly enjoy using paredit, which works well.
I have not tried out the other emacs modules for picolisp, and I
don't
know if the one in MELPA works well with paredit, which I see as
the
essential feature for an emacs picolisp-mode.
i myself don't use paredit - i've tried it, and have made an
effort to use it, but in the end i found it to be much more of a
hindrance than a help[1]. So i don't have any experience with
paredit's interactions with my mode.
If the MELPA package supports paredit
Could you please explain what it means to "support paredit"? i
certainly wouldn't want my mode to get in the way of people who
want to use paredit.
and the other features of the
picolisp-mode coming with picolisp, ideally by also supporting
the
nice tools from the vim/vip editors
Could you please elaborate on this? Which tools in particular are
you thinking of?
Different users might find different versions, but I would not
consider it impossible or even difficult to get to the things
you
want.
In the end everyone should use whatever fits that person the
best, we
don't need one way to rule them all.
*nod* i very much agree. Whilst i definitely see the benefits of
there being only one 'picolisp-mode', i also feel that there are
benefits to having than one set of functionality available. Take
the vc/magit situation as an example: vc and magit have quite
different approaches to providing a UI to git, and that allows
different users to choose the approach that works better for
them.
Having said all that, if the PicoLisp community generally felt it
would be best to settle on the mode currently bundled with the
distribution as /the/ Emacs mode for PicoLisp, and wanted me to
remove my mode from MELPA - or at least, rename it - in order to
avoid confusion, i'd be fine with that as well. :-)
Alexis.
[1] Yes, i'm aware of the claim that "[i]f you think paredit is
not for you then you need to become the kind of person that
paredit is for." :-)
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe
