[slime-devel] Re: [RfC] Reorganization of source

[Tobias C. Rittweiler]

Helmut Eller <heller at common-lisp.net> writes:

> * Tobias C. Rittweiler [2007-08-12 12:51+0200] writes:
>
> > Helmut Eller <heller at common-lisp.net> writes:
> > > No consensus here.  The basic structure, a few big files, should stay
> > > as it is.
> >
> > What's the benefit?
>
> I like it that way.

What's the reason of your liking then? :)


> > I'd really like to see this [inspector] stuff swapped out into
> > another file.
>
> The original inspector was much much smaller.  The ugliness is mostly
> due the misuse of the inspector as class browser.  If you can remove
> the CLOS stuff, more power to you.  Removing the inspector entirely is
> not an option.

Oh, I didn't say the inspector should be removed. Merely that it
should be swapped out, while still belonging to the core of Slime.

Hence I moved from the idea of a contrib/ directory to the idea of a
modules/ directory where even core features can be placed.


> > (Of course, there's buffer folding. But I don't think that it works that
> > well with `M-.' --- and it doesn't allow to leverage Common Lisp's
> > package system, assuming multiple package definitions within one source
> > file is a big no-no.)
>
> C-x n p works well with Slime. 

While it's nice, it doesn't seem to work with `M-.' on definitions
outside of the currently narrowed page.

Also this doesn't address my point of leveraging the package systems
(which would allow dropping the Elisp naming style of prepending the
package name (or the name of the current logical entity respectively)
onto symbols in some parts of the code.)

  -T.