On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:26:49 +0530 Madhu enometh@meer.net wrote:
- michaelw+slime@foldr.org
995BC906-2C23-4069-88CD-E2F0BBD9401F@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.
Matt