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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #56 received at 79106 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: johnw <at> gnu.org
Cc: johnw <at> newartisans.com, philipk <at> posteo.net, eg642616 <at> gmail.com,
 shipmints <at> gmail.com, karthikchikmagalur <at> gmail.com, 79106 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#79106: [PATCH] Add new optional keywords to use-package
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2025 14:32:42 +0300

Ping!  John, please respond.

> Cc: karthikchikmagalur <at> gmail.com, philipk <at> posteo.net, 79106 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>  shipmints <at> gmail.com, johnw <at> newartisans.com
> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2025 19:19:15 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> 
> > From: "Elijah G." <eg642616 <at> gmail.com>
> > Cc: karthikchikmagalur <at> gmail.com,  79106 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
> >   shipmints <at> gmail.com,  johnw <at> newartisans.com
> > Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2025 09:44:46 -0600
> > 
> > Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> > 
> > >> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
> > >> Cc: Elijah Gabe Pérez <eg642616 <at> gmail.com>,
> > >>   karthikchikmagalur <at> gmail.com,
> > >>   johnw <at> newartisans.com, 79106 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, shipmints <at> gmail.com
> > >> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2025 14:26:53 +0000
> > >> 
> > >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> > >> 
> > >> >> > 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.
> > >
> > > Figure out how?
> > >
> > > AFAIU, the latest round of comments just brought up an issue with
> > > :hook+, and the rest didn't cause any objections?  Why not install
> > > them?
> > 
> > AFAIU, the keywords are considered useless and perhaps unnecessary, and
> > actually, they are, most of them can be useless and redundant or
> > confusing, but to remember, most of these keywords are ideas and
> > concepts that people asked for in use-package and could not be
> > implemented due to lack of time or had to be eliminated.
> > 
> > Based on the comments here and in emacs-devel, the only keyword i think
> > should be in core would be :hook+.
> > 
> > And this is based on a recent comment in use-package bug tracker on github:
> > 
> > ---
> >   I myself have a wrapper around use-package for various reasons and
> >   I'll be adding support for this as I don't like having things like:
> > 
> >     :config
> >     ;; TODO: neo/use-package could support dept in :hook
> >     (add-hook 'after-init-hook 'neo/desktop-restore 99) ; :hook doesn't support depth
> > 
> >   but if it were supported by use-package it could benefit more people.
> > ---
> 
> John, would you please chime in and tel what you think about this?
> 
> 
> 
> 

Previous Next

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