* "Matthew D. Swank" 20081219234257.1bc9639e@inky : Wrote on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:42:57 -0600:
| On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:26:49 +0530 | Madhu enometh@meer.net wrote: | | 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.
* "Matthew D. Swank" 20081219234257.1bc9639e@inky : Wrote on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:42:57 -0600:
|> |> No, I do not believe this warrants a fork. | | Of course not. Most of your proposals are gloriously free of code.
The next part of what I wrote that you snipped out explains why. Let me repeat it and see if you can follow why.
|>The specific propsal here was to move these two components out of |>slime.el so there can be drop in replacements which could be |>maintained separately.
| If you're going to whine without any concrete alternate
Moving the code out to a separate file is trivial. You're request for a concrete example makes no sense. I could do it you could do it anyone can do it.
I prefer it if Helmut does it as he is the chief developer of
Further try to follow the reasoning in.
|>It is not hard to checkout SLIME, hit something which is irritating, |>and rewrite the code to fit your needs. (You don't hear from me |>everytime I do that, and I expect every emacser does it). What is |>harder is updating SLIME to find the code you rewrote is gone and |>replaced by something that not only does not fit your need; but now to |>get the old behaviour back, you have to rip out what is new and |>reintroduce the old code.
| implementation, at least have the decency to recruit a mob. That is | if you can find any that shares your petty irritations.
I'll do nothing of that sort and you can shove it. Is Xach waiting to butt in pointlessly like you did next?
-- Madhu