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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Troy Brown <brownts <at> troybrown.dev>
Cc: 73280 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, joaotavora <at> gmail.com, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: bug#73280: 30.0.90; Eglot: eglot-workspace-configuration might not be found in .dir-locals.el
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 21:15:14 +0300

> From: Troy Brown <brownts <at> troybrown.dev>
> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 13:07:15 -0400
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, 73280 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > Is there a downside to mentioning a major mode you don't
> > actually use in your .dir-locals.el, Troy?
> >
> 
> I would say the major downside is that it is not intuitive at all.

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.

> It's not consistent with how directory-local variables behave.

I disagree.  Certain settings in .dir-locals are completely global,
which is even more radical than this case.  Having to specify a
setting once for several related modes is a Good Thing, IMO.

> 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.

Previous Next

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