Open purcell opened 10 years ago
ac-js2
also has some navigation commands that don't really belong to an auto-complete
or a company
package either. I'll separate that out into something like a js2-utils
then both completion frontends can depend on that.
Perhaps you could even get them added upstream if they're widely useful? @mooz appears to be actively maintaining js2-mode
and accepting pull requests.
Good idea. I've issued a pr for the navigation component https://github.com/mooz/js2-mode/pull/159.
I'm planning on creating three packages: a completion package js-complete
and two frontends, ac-js-complete
and company-js-complete
. With regards to melpa would it be better to create a single new repository for these packages or rename this one?
If you're targeting js2-mode
, wouldn't js2-complete
etc be clearer than js-complete
? And the -complete
suffix in ac-js-complete
and company-js-complete
is redundant: just call them ac-js(2)
and company-js(2)
.
As far as MELPA's concerned, you can organise them however you want. My suggestion would be to use the current repo, and add js2-complete.el
to it. Rename the repo to js2-complete
or similar: github will redirect everything, so MELPA will be unaffected. Then you can make ac-js2.el
depend on the js2-complete
package, fixing up the MELPA recipe(s) accordingly. And also add company-js2.el
at your leisure, of course.
auto-complete
andcompany
are alternatives to each other, so it doesn't really make sense to support both inac-js2
. For a start, the reference tocompany-*
symbols causes byte-compilation warnings on systems which don't havecompany
installed, which simply wouldn't be present if you could(require 'company)
. The naming is also confusing, because I doubt anycompany
users would expect anac-*
package to be useful to them.As a result, I'd strongly suggest splitting out a separate
company-js2.el
in either the same repo or a fresh one, which would then form a separate easy-to-find and logically-named package in MELPA.