Hello Prot,
This is in reference to a comment you wrote in a previous email:
> Maybe this is the right time to ask if we should provide a formal> solution in denote.el instead of limiting it to the manual. Though> this may be more ambitious and I do not mean to inhibit ongoing> efforts.
I think this is a great idea. Many of those functions are crucial to
my workflow and I think it would be great for them to be available to
all new users of denote. I'm happy to move the functions into a
~denote-extras~ file, if you are okay with it. My questions:
1. Is the name ~denote-extras.el~ okay?
2. What should be the default prefix we use for these functions? Do we
continue with the current ~my-denote-...~ names or should we use a
different prefix?
--
Cheers,
Vedang
https://vedang.me
@vedang on fosstodon.org
> From: Vedang <ved.manerikar@gmail.com>> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 21:56:13 +0530>> Hello Prot,
Hello Vedang,
> This is in reference to a comment you wrote in a previous email:>>> Maybe this is the right time to ask if we should provide a formal>> solution in denote.el instead of limiting it to the manual. Though>> this may be more ambitious and I do not mean to inhibit ongoing>> efforts.>> I think this is a great idea. Many of those functions are crucial to> my workflow and I think it would be great for them to be available to> all new users of denote. I'm happy to move the functions into a> ~denote-extras~ file, if you are okay with it.
I think this is worth doing, though let's delay it a few more weeks
until I release the new version of Denote. Maybe end of June or
beginning of July. This is a massive version already and I do not want
to keep adding stuff as the change log may feel overwhelming to the
reader.
> My questions:>> 1. Is the name ~denote-extras.el~ okay?
In principle, yes, though I prefer to have names that are more focused
in scope. That way, we will not get into a situation where we have a
catch-all with extra functionality because that will create confusion as
to what belongs in denote.el versus this other file.
> 2. What should be the default prefix we use for these functions? Do we> continue with the current ~my-denote-...~ names or should we use a> different prefix?
The convention in Emacs is for every symbol to have the file name (minus
extension) as its prefix. You can check how denote-rename-buffer.el is
done, for example. When the time comes, we can discuss the
technicalities. Though you can just send a patch and I can do the
refinements on my end. No worries!
All the best,
Prot
--
Protesilaos Stavrou
https://protesilaos.com
Ack, This helps. I will wait for the new version to be released before
I pick this up.
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 11:15 PM Protesilaos Stavrou
<info@protesilaos.com> wrote:
>> > From: Vedang <ved.manerikar@gmail.com>> > Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 21:56:13 +0530> >> > Hello Prot,>> Hello Vedang,>> > This is in reference to a comment you wrote in a previous email:> >> >> Maybe this is the right time to ask if we should provide a formal> >> solution in denote.el instead of limiting it to the manual. Though> >> this may be more ambitious and I do not mean to inhibit ongoing> >> efforts.> >> > I think this is a great idea. Many of those functions are crucial to> > my workflow and I think it would be great for them to be available to> > all new users of denote. I'm happy to move the functions into a> > ~denote-extras~ file, if you are okay with it.>> I think this is worth doing, though let's delay it a few more weeks> until I release the new version of Denote. Maybe end of June or> beginning of July. This is a massive version already and I do not want> to keep adding stuff as the change log may feel overwhelming to the> reader.>> > My questions:> >> > 1. Is the name ~denote-extras.el~ okay?>> In principle, yes, though I prefer to have names that are more focused> in scope. That way, we will not get into a situation where we have a> catch-all with extra functionality because that will create confusion as> to what belongs in denote.el versus this other file.>> > 2. What should be the default prefix we use for these functions? Do we> > continue with the current ~my-denote-...~ names or should we use a> > different prefix?>> The convention in Emacs is for every symbol to have the file name (minus> extension) as its prefix. You can check how denote-rename-buffer.el is> done, for example. When the time comes, we can discuss the> technicalities. Though you can just send a patch and I can do the> refinements on my end. No worries!>> All the best,> Prot>> --> Protesilaos Stavrou> https://protesilaos.com
--
Cheers,
Vedang
https://vedang.me
@vedang on fosstodon.org
Hello Prot,
Picking this thread up again, I have just pushed a patch with 3
commits to the mailing list for review.
These commits showcase what I have in mind for adding the helper
functions from the manual into the source code. I have only pushed the
functions that I use regularly (and have been using since the original
discussion).
Please review them when time permits and let me know if I'm on the
right track. I'll start slowly moving what I can from the manual as
and when possible. It would be important to update the manual as well,
but I didn't want to submit too many changes without your feedback.
Thanks,
Vedang
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:05 PM Vedang <ved.manerikar@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ack, This helps. I will wait for the new version to be released before> I pick this up.>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 11:15 PM Protesilaos Stavrou> <info@protesilaos.com> wrote:> >> > > From: Vedang <ved.manerikar@gmail.com>> > > Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 21:56:13 +0530> > >> > > Hello Prot,> >> > Hello Vedang,> >> > > This is in reference to a comment you wrote in a previous email:> > >> > >> Maybe this is the right time to ask if we should provide a formal> > >> solution in denote.el instead of limiting it to the manual. Though> > >> this may be more ambitious and I do not mean to inhibit ongoing> > >> efforts.> > >> > > I think this is a great idea. Many of those functions are crucial to> > > my workflow and I think it would be great for them to be available to> > > all new users of denote. I'm happy to move the functions into a> > > ~denote-extras~ file, if you are okay with it.> >> > I think this is worth doing, though let's delay it a few more weeks> > until I release the new version of Denote. Maybe end of June or> > beginning of July. This is a massive version already and I do not want> > to keep adding stuff as the change log may feel overwhelming to the> > reader.> >> > > My questions:> > >> > > 1. Is the name ~denote-extras.el~ okay?> >> > In principle, yes, though I prefer to have names that are more focused> > in scope. That way, we will not get into a situation where we have a> > catch-all with extra functionality because that will create confusion as> > to what belongs in denote.el versus this other file.> >> > > 2. What should be the default prefix we use for these functions? Do we> > > continue with the current ~my-denote-...~ names or should we use a> > > different prefix?> >> > The convention in Emacs is for every symbol to have the file name (minus> > extension) as its prefix. You can check how denote-rename-buffer.el is> > done, for example. When the time comes, we can discuss the> > technicalities. Though you can just send a patch and I can do the> > refinements on my end. No worries!> >> > All the best,> > Prot> >> > --> > Protesilaos Stavrou> > https://protesilaos.com>>>> --> Cheers,> Vedang>> https://vedang.me> @vedang on fosstodon.org
--
Cheers,
Vedang
https://vedang.me
@vedang on fosstodon.org