Closed shosti closed 10 years ago
Yes, I agree, that would be nice. Are you up for implementing it?
Sure, I'll get on it when I get a chance. Quick question--are you pretty set on having the prodigy-define-service
options be equivalent to the prodigy-services
options? This sort of thing would be much easier to implement with a pre-processor in prodigy-define-service
.
are you pretty set on having the prodigy-define-service options be equivalent to the prodigy-services options?
As long as it doesn't make something really complex I would like to keep it. I don't use it myself, but I know others are. This makes more sense when it is validated using customize, which there is an open issue for. See https://github.com/rejeep/prodigy.el/issues/1
This sort of thing would be much easier to implement with a pre-processor in prodigy-define-service.
Easier, yes. But this particilar feature should be very easy to implement now that we have prodigy-process-on-output-hook
. It should be just a matter adding a new function that does the when/set-status thing.
You have good points, but I think the cost is still very low to keep the definer functions "stupid".
It seems like this:
is a pretty common pattern. It would be easier to do something like:
instead.