eglot
eglot copied to clipboard
joaotavora
Add more interfaces to lsp-interface-alist
There are many missing interfaces in eglot, and I added most, if not all of the relevant ones to the alist. This should help us move further along into lsp compliance.
What do you think? Is it useful adding them in bulk like this, or should we wait until there's need for a new one?
What are the benefits with listing them there besides documentation? If the only benefit is documentation, how about adding the ones we don't support commented out?
Well, the benefit is hypothetical. If a user decides to use the eglot-dbind and friends using one of them and trying to use incorrect keys, they'll get a warning. So they are in a sense supported, but not used. This is used mostly(only?) for the compilation of the spec, and only used when strict mode is set, I think.
Sounds good to me. Are there any downsides to adding them that we should consider?
Also, do we really want to do that reformatting? I don't have an opinion either way, but maybe @joaotavora does.
No need to do the formatting, but it is a huge wall of text without, hehe :)
I've rebased my stuff and made some changes to the formatting. It has a little smaller footprint now. I think it's good to go, unless @joaotavora thinks this is too much :)
Sorry I'm late. I don't have a very strong opinion here. I lean towards adding these things as we go, so as to generate as little noise as possible, like searching for keywords inthe file and getting the (wrong) impression that Eglot somehow implements the associated features. But If @skangas thinks it's useful, then ok. The above problem could be fixed by having the variable declaration in a separate file, or, better yet, generating it compile-time from the actual LSP spec.
Yeah, that would be the Lisp thing to do.
