* Helmut Eller m2myesh5ov.fsf@common-lisp.net : Wrote on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:31:28 +0100:
| But apparently you aren't willing to repeat your arguments so that I | have chance to understand what you mean. I don't keep a record what | every complainer has said a half year ago.
OK. If I've already spent the time in making the point before, and it must be available on the list I'd prefer to avoid repeating myself. I'm not sure what "arguments" you are referring to here.
In this thread I asked (regarding SLIME history) ,---- | Then how about making it easier for alternative implementations to be | used instead of the one that is provided with slime? `----
I've outlined how I think that can be done with minimum impact in my reply to Michael Weber, I hope it is clear. (Mathew Swank did not get it). If it is still not clear what I'm asking for, please ask.
The specifics of the history behaviour are not relevant. But FTR they were discussed in Jan 2007. I suggested splitting on 12 Aug 2007 in the "[RfC] Reorganization of source" thread. Since then the contrib packages have been moved out. Now once again I believe that a start can be made in cutting down SLOC in slime.el by moving out the history component and completion component.
It is not hard to move the history functions to a sepearate file. The first time I did it, I posted a message on this mailing list on 13 Jul 2007 with the "load me over patch" to get a different behaviour . But this is a pointless and time-wasting exercise to repeat unless you agree to support it, like you factored out contrib.
-- Madhu