Subject: bug#73280: 30.0.90; Eglot: eglot-workspace-configuration might not be found in .dir-locals.el

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 22:17:01 +0300

> From: Troy Brown <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 14:53:53 -0400
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
> 
> > With the emergence of the *-ts-mode modes, we need to adjust our
> > intuition.  We decided that having foo-mode settings cover foo-ts-mode
> > as well as much as possible is an advantage, not a disadvantage.  So
> > our intuition needs to follow suit.
> >
> 
> That would be fine if this was isolated to only "ts" vs "non-ts"
> modes.  Another example is "typescript-mode".  In order to configure
> the server, you have to use "js-mode" in .dir-locals.el.  Why?
> Because it's the first one in the list.

Isn't Typescript a variant of JavaScript?

> I proposed in my last response a mechanism where you could specify a
> configuration for any of the modes associated with a server and have
> it applied, rather than ignoring a configuration if it wasn't
> explicitly specified for the first one in the list.

I'm not against it, I just responded to the part of your arguments
which are more philosophical.

> > > I don't think I'd agree with the first mode being representative, it
> > > seems somewhat arbitrary.  For instance, in order to change
> > > eglot-workspace-configuration for "sh-mode", you have to set the
> > > configuration in .dir-locals.el for "bash-ts-mode"...who would've
> > > guessed this?
> >
> > I'd like to think that in a not-so-distant future, _everyone_ will
> > guess that.  Why not? it makes perfect sense to me.
> 
> What is that?  It's not consistent with the "foo-mode settings cover
> foo-ts-mode", it's actually the other way around.

Bash is a variant of a Bourne shell, isn't it?