[Vimpulse] `make big` target
Hi, There seems to be a problem with the `big` Makefile target - the elisp produced appears to be unparseable, at least for me. ("End of file during parsing" -- and trying to track down paren imbalances is a dog, so I didn't try very hard to pinpoint the issue.)
Stephen Bach <[email protected]> writes:
Hi,
There seems to be a problem with the `big` Makefile target - the elisp produced appears to be unparseable, at least for me. ("End of file during parsing" -- and trying to track down paren imbalances is a dog, so I didn't try very hard to pinpoint the issue.)
Yeah... 37945c50fd (Remove superfluous Visual code) broke it. Actually, my guess is that the fix is trivial -- Vegard made a simple change cramming multiple froms under a single `eval-when-compile', which the simple `sed' hack used to strip these forms does not grok. OTOH, we should just definitively remove the big file support. Vegard, what do you think? (BTW, you should actually use the makefile test targets to check for breakages before you push changes, you know ;-)) To anybody still using the single-file version, I recommend using the multiple files. It's also less hassle, actually -- just put the vimpulse directory into your `load-path' and you're all set. Štěpán
On 2010-09-27 13:41, Štěpán Němec wrote:
Stephen Bach <[email protected]> writes:
There seems to be a problem with the `big` Makefile target - the elisp produced appears to be unparseable, at least for me.
Yeah... 37945c50fd (Remove superfluous Visual code) broke it.
Sorry about that. Fixed in commit ba35b99.
OTOH, we should just definitively remove the big file support.
Why? The big file is much easier to distribute.
To anybody still using the single-file version, I recommend using the multiple files. It's also less hassle, actually -- just put the vimpulse directory into your `load-path' and you're all set.
You may have to add the "vimpulse" directory to `load-path' first. (Not all directories in `load-path' are searched recursively, and those that are may not be where you want to put Vimpulse.) -- Vegard
Vegard Øye <[email protected]> writes:
On 2010-09-27 13:41, Štěpán Němec wrote:
OTOH, we should just definitively remove the big file support.
Why? The big file is much easier to distribute.
We've discussed that before already. It makes no sense to be trying to support both. `make big' is just a hack. If you want a single file, develop with a single file. If you want multiple files, distribute multiple files. Štěpán
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:18:35PM +0200, Štěpán Němec wrote:
Vegard Øye <[email protected]> writes:
On 2010-09-27 13:41, Štěpán Němec wrote:
OTOH, we should just definitively remove the big file support.
Why? The big file is much easier to distribute.
We've discussed that before already. It makes no sense to be trying to support both. `make big' is just a hack. If you want a single file, develop with a single file. If you want multiple files, distribute multiple files.
Štěpán
FWIW, as a consumer of vimpulse, I like the single file. Makes it easier to transfer around. Also, for those of us who use version control to track and distribute our individual Emacs configs, a single file means that when we upgrade the vimpulse package we don't have to worry about vimpulse-foo.el having been renamed to vimpusle-bar.el. It's just a straight copy.
participants (3)
-
Stephen Bach -
Vegard Øye -
Štěpán Němec