3 ms·
I use straight combined with use-package and it's great. I don't really need to since I rarely hack on packages in the way that straight imagines you would, but
by ljm 5y ago
I use straight combined with use-package and it's great. I don't really need to since I rarely hack on packages in the way that straight imagines you would, but I like the middle ground it introduces.
(defalias 'sup 'straight-use-package)
(sup 'somepackage)
(require 'somepackage) ;; sometimes
(setq somepackage-config-thing)
(add-hook 'some-mode-hook #'some-package-hook)
I know with use-package you'd do all this in the macro with config and init, but especially when it comes to dependent packages I prefer having things flat as opposed to nesting them.
My config is apparently 333 lines but a lot of that is whitespace and comments for grouping, plus the bootstrap code which I incidentally use for publishing my blog.
- masklinn 5y ago> I know with use-package you'd do all this in the macro with config and init, but especially when it comes to dependent packages I prefer having things flat as opposed to nesting them. > > My config is apparently 333 lines but a lot of that is whitespace and comments for grouping The reason I like `use-package` even for global concerns (I actually have a `(use-package emacs)` e even though that's pretty much entirely global setqs) is it provides some grouping structure and encourages keeping each item in the proper place. `:ensure` is also pretty much essential as that's what does the bringing-up (ensuring the package being enabled and configured is actually installed locally).