Please make deft-separator a custom option

[saf-dmitry]

The default value of deft-separator takes a lot of space. Making deft-separator variable a custom option would allow user to adjust it to his/her preference.

[TRSx80]

I thought that because it was a defconst instead of just a normal defvar that maybe the program needed to key upon it somehow or (?). So I went through the code and it does not seem to me that this is the case. So I just changed the value to what I wanted (in my case " - ").

@saf-dmitry,

If you did not know, there is nothing in Emacs Lisp really stopping you from setting the value of a defconst like there is in some other languages. However it is considered a hint from the program writer, and that is why I took a good look through the program before deciding to just change the value.

[saf-dmitry]

If you did not know, there is nothing in Emacs Lisp really stopping you from setting the value of a defconst like there is in some other languages.

@TRSx80 Thank you, I know this and I actually use this hint already. I do think, however, that making deft-separator a custom option would make sense from the above-mentioned perspective.

[TRSx80]

Just mentioned it in case you did not, as it's something I myself only learned somewhat recently. :slightly_smiling_face:

I do agree with you, I think it should be a regular defvar, I see no reason for it to be a defconst. In fact I would be willing to submit a PR if @jrblevin is open to it, but he seems perhaps occupied elsewhere as of late.

[saf-dmitry]

I do agree with you, I think it should be a regular defvar, I see no reason for it to be a defconst.

Actually, it should be defcustom, like all custom options.

In fact I would be willing to submit a PR if @jrblevin is open to it, but he seems perhaps occupied elsewhere as of late.

Unfortunately.

[TRSx80]

Actually, it should be defcustom, like all custom options.

Reason I suggested defvar, at least initially, is because it seems all other variables are already that way, and this would be a much smaller change.

Ultimately however, I suppose you are right, but that would be more involved, changing all existing variables as well, and assigning them types, etc...

Maybe by the time jrblevin appears we will have it all hashed out. :smile:

All jokes aside, my personal belief is that it's not worth expending our {limited,valuable} time/effort if the PRs will languish there and never get included. There are already some from 2018 which have not been released. I am willing to help out, but... (y'know...)