[slime-devel] text properties in REPL
Matthew D. Swank
akopa at charter.net
Sat Dec 20 05:42:57 UTC 2008
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:26:49 +0530
Madhu <enometh at meer.net> wrote:
> * michaelw+slime at foldr.org
> <995BC906-2C23-4069-88CD-E2F0BBD9401F at foldr.org> : Wrote on Fri, 19
> Dec 2008 09:20:46 +0100:
> | On Dec 19, 2008, at 01:56 , Madhu wrote:
> |> | slime.el is already beyond the 10000 LOC limit and I'm more
> |> | interested to bring that down to 9000 than to add more stuff.
> |> The specific proposal here was to factor out completion, history
> |> etc. so they can either use vanilla emacs facilities instead of the
> |> idiosyncractic behaviour you happened to code up and impose on us.
> |> This is not the first time you are ignoring the point made and
> |> sticking to your views. However I don't mind persisting because
> the |> intention and hope is SLIME should improve.
> |> | It would be more effective if you would make a proposal how to
> |> | reduce the number of lines instead of the usual complaining how
> bad |> | SLIME is.
> | the "specific proposal" could be in the form of you setting up a
> | fork. You can show, in code, how you would like to see SLIME
> behave, | and others have the chance to try it out and also to
> contribute. When | there is something to compare, we can think of
> how to fold it back | into SLIME.
> No, I do not believe this warrants a fork.
Of course not. Most of your proposals are gloriously free of code. If
you're going to whine without any concrete alternate implementation, at
least have the decency to recruit a mob. That is if you can find any
that shares your petty irritations.
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to
your grandmother." -- Albert Einstein.
More information about the slime-devel