GNU bug report logs - #59214
[PATCH] Alternate rust-analyzer command added

Previous Next

Full log

Message #43 received at 59214 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
To: Pankaj Jangid <pankaj <at> codeisgreat.org>
Cc: 59214 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#59214: [PATCH] Alternate rust-analyzer command added
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 08:13:12 +0000

Pankaj Jangid <pankaj <at> codeisgreat.org> writes:

> João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> So my recommendation is that we keep just the `rustup' version and `rls'
> as fallback. I have attached the updated patch.

I'll let you guys make a decision but consider maybe consider these
simple questions when making it.

1. If I was to start developing rust today as a average programmer but
   Rust newbie and I installed one of these "stable" or "nightly"
   things, which one would I probably pick?  And would I have a
   'rust-analyzer' executable in my PATH as a result of that?

2. What are the odds that a average Rust programmer understands a
   message telling her

     "Searching for program: No such file or directory, rust-analyzer"

   and endeavors to create a 'rust-analyzer' script with sth like

     #!/bin/sh
     rustup run rust-analyzer

   somewhere in this config?

   Node JS/NPM also has this 'npm link' which creates a global link to a
   given specific version of an NPM package, and that includes ensuring
   its executables are in the PATH.  Is there such a thing in RustVille?

3. What are the chances that an average Rust programmer stumbles across
   the Eglot manual and reaches:

   (with-eval-after-load 'eglot
      (add-to-list 'eglot-server-programs
                   ("fools" "--stdio")))

   And understands what to do?

4. The 'rust-analyzer' executable that was once, somehow, an
   out-of-the-box thing, right?  Why is it not anymore?  Is it
   temporary, i.e. it coming back in the future?  Or does Rust frown
   upon these things and inequivocally prefers 'rustup run' from now on?
   Or was it never an out-of-the-box thing?  If so, why is it in
   eglot.el as if it was?

5. If you take away the current 'rust-analyzer' entry, how many bug
   reports from annoyed users will we get? 0? 1? Million?

João

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.