GNU bug report logs - #79106
[PATCH] Add new optional keywords to use-package

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: karthikchikmagalur <at> gmail.com, Elijah Gabe Pérez <eg642616 <at> gmail.com>, 79106 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, shipmints <at> gmail.com, johnw <at> newartisans.com
Subject: bug#79106: [PATCH] Add new optional keywords to use-package
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2025 14:26:53 +0000

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Elijah Gabe Pérez <eg642616 <at> gmail.com>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,  johnw <at> newartisans.com,
>>   philipk <at> posteo.net,  79106 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  shipmints <at> gmail.com
>> Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2025 19:42:24 -0600
>> 
>> Karthik Chikmagalur <karthikchikmagalur <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> >>> From my POV, we can install these changes in core, assuming that
>> >>> you
>> >>> can post a patch that incorporates the relevant parts of the
>> >>> discussions.
>> >>
>> >> Sounds good to me, I've updated the patch for include *only* the
>> >> keywords that people may find useful.
>> >>
>> >> The rest can be kept in my use-package-x repository.
>> >
>> > Since support for :hook+ is being added, I have a suggestion to make
>> > its
>> > syntax more in-line with add-hook, so the user does not have to learn
>> > new syntax.  This might not be possible (or lead to ambiguous
>> > parsing),
>> > so feel free to ignore it if this is the case.
>> >
>> > add-hook takes the arguments (HOOK FUNCTION DEPTH LOCAL), so perhaps
>> > :hook+ can do the same?
>> >
>> > -------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Suggestion 1: allow many hooks to be specified in a list
>> >
>> > :hook+ (foo-mode . (bar baz quux))
>> >
>> > adds functions bar, baz and quux to foo-mode-hook.  (To disambiguate
>> > between a list of hook functions and a lambda, you can look at the car
>> > of the list maybe?)
>> 
>> It is not possible because (foo-mode . (bar baz quux)) is expanded as
>> (foo-mode bar baz quux), and this can be misinterpreted by :hook+ as a
>> list of hooks.
>> 
>> The only workaround i found is making a kind of separator (:multi),
>> which tells :hook+ the cdr is a list of functions, not part of a list of
>> hooks.
>> 
>> I know that :multi can look weird (even i was thinking in rename it [1]
>> or use a better separator), but it was the only solution i found and
>> worked.
>> 
>> > Suggestion 2: allow many hooks to be added to.  (:hook already does
>> > this)
>> >
>> > :hook+ ((foo-mode cor-mode) . (bar baz quux))
>> >
>> > Adds the three functions to both foo-mode-hook and cor-mode-hook.
>> 
>> Similar problem as previous.
>> 
>> > Suggestion 3: Allow DEPTH and LOCAL to be optionally specified with
>> > the functions,
>> > in the same order as add-hook.
>> >
>> > :hook+ (foo-mode . ((bar 90 t)
>> >                     baz
>> >                     (quux -30)
>> >                     (cor nil t))
>> >
>> > will install 
>> > - bar at depth 90, to be run buffer-locally when foo-mode-hook runs
>> > - baz without special accommodations, and
>> > - quux at depth -30.
>> > - cor buffer-locally with default depth
>> 
>> I like this, i think i can implement only the "local" part.
>> But of course, only part of :multi.
>> 
>> If i can get rid of `:multi` i can implement this, but it will look
>> somewhat ugly:
>> 
>>   :hook+ (foo-mode . '((bar 90 t)))
>
> So what is the outcome of this discussion?  Are you working on an
> updated patch, or should I install the last one you posted?

I believe there was a reasonable doubt whether we need some of the
keywords at all from the initial patch.  So my vote would be to hold
back from that option for now, and figure out what would make sense to
add to the core.

-- 
Philip Kaludercic

Previous Next

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