GNU bug report logs - #79290
30.2; eglot-alternatives doesn't support re-use of same program with different subcommands

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>, Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Cc: felician.nemeth <at> gmail.com, ddavis <at> ddavis.io, 79290 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#79290: 30.2; eglot-alternatives doesn't support re-use of same program with different subcommands
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2025 15:48:53 +0300

> From: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:40:41 +0100
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 79290 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 6:38 PM Doug Davis <ddavis <at> ddavis.io> wrote:
> 
>  >> an invocation of M-x eglot will fail to show the second instance of
>  >> using uv in the resulting list that appears to be passed on to
>  >> `completing-read'. (Notice the repeated use of `uv run`
>  >> https://docs.astral.sh/uv/reference/cli/#uv-run)
>  >>
>  >> more info: the benefit of using `uv run` unloads the burden of using
>  >> emacs to property setup a virtual environment; uv automatically handles
>  >> running the correct installation of the invoked subcommand.
>  >
>  > João, any comments or suggestions?
> 
> No many:
> 
> I run python servers myself and find that a simple handrolled "virtual
> environment" helper that sets exec-path, process-environment, and PATH
> works fine 99% of the time (if not 100% of the time) for my python programming
> needs, admittedly not very complex.  This includes eglot. Attached my 50-line
> zenv.el in case is useful to anyone, though not  related to  this issue.
>  
>  Below is a patch on master that resolves
> 
>    ("server-program" "arg1" "arg2")
> 
>  to appear as
> 
>    "server-program arg1 arg2"
> 
>  in the completing read; just an idea
> 
> I don't fully understand the issue, but I don't have anything against 
> these quality-of-life patches if, and this is a big IF, they are small and 
> very well tested. I'm thinking about C-u M-x eglot, and other interactive 
> scenarios. eglot-server-program's syntax is crammed to the max
> already.  Related to this, Philip K. had a good idea about eglot-alternatives,
> to make it "less functional", but I can't remember what it was exactly.

Philip, do you remember?

Previous Next

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