multiple-cursors.el VS eglot

You'll need to install an extension for it, but yes it does. Here is one example: https://github.com/magnars/multiple-cursors.el

For me, the beauty of Beancount[0] is that it's just text files in Git. There's a web UI I use for generating reports, and a Python API with which I hacked together some import/export scripts, but 99% of my interactions with it are via Emacs[1] and Magit.

A ton of repetitive bookkeeping tasks become so much easier when you can copy and paste, or use keyboard macros or something like multiple-cursors[2], rather than have to click tens or hundreds of times in a GUI. Many years ago I used QuickBooks, and basic tasks like importing a bank statement took at least an order of magnitude longer than they do now.

Having my company's books in Git is also huge when it comes to auditing, concurrency, backups, and figuring out where things went wrong when accounts don't balance. As mentioned in another comment: `git diff` is a really powerful tool and it's awesome to be able to check out the books as they existed at a particular point in time. `git blame` is great for when things don't balance. Writing meaningful commit messages and comments keeps me sane when I try to remember a year later why something is recorded the way it is.

The biggest downside—or advantage, depending on how you look at it—is that there's no default or built-in chart of accounts, so you need a certain level of accounting acumen (or professional advice) to set things up at first. I'm pretty sure GnuCash aims to be more plug-and-play, whereas Beancount is more akin to a programming library that you use to build an accounting system that works for you. I agree with the grandparent commenter, who said that text-based accounting is "the best and most flexible accounting experience I've ever had." But the cost of that flexibility is that a certain level of base knowledge is a prerequisite.

[0]: https://beancount.io/

[1]: https://github.com/beancount/beancount-mode

[2]: https://github.com/magnars/multiple-cursors.el

The original multiple cursors package is amazing for what it is, but it scales very badly. Emacs is efficient when editing at one place at a time (as you'd do normally), and when mc replicates all the edits character-by-character for all the cursors, it does the very opposite of this: many edits all in very different places. It works quite well when using just a few cursors, but going above a dozen of them causes them to be visibly sluggish.

Recently multiple-cursors has been unusable for me on Emacs 29.0.60 (not a release yet). Movements (and possibly other operations) don't work with the following error:

If you intend to use Emacs for this (as opposed to some external script), you're probably better off using the keyboard macros or a regular search&replace instead of multiple cursors (I assume the Magnars flavor of them). As flexible as they are, they don't scale well and they get exponentially slower the more cursors you have. Having 2500 cursors sounds insane.

You can do something similar with multiple cursors.

Then, in *rg* buffer, we transform org-link-expand-abbrev into org-link-RENAMED the way we prefer (we have all the Emacs power, some of us might use query-replace, other might use multiple-cursors.el, other iedit, etc.). And so *rg* buffer looks like this:

There is also multiple-cursors.el, which looks the closest to what you want, but it's also the buggiest.

Recently I stumbled upon this issue:

https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/1127

I don't know enough about emacs and LSP to see the full picture, but it seems that both eglot's and corfu's maintainers, assumably very competent programmers, can't find a solution for this.

I only skimmed the thread. My understanding is that LSP dumps a long list of completion candidates at once and they can't decide a cache strategy that works well with existing code...?

It could be. There are unfixed issues with eglot and corfu, and sadly not a lot of willingness to investigate.

Eglot errors when I add new Python code blocks. The error disappears when I reconnect the language server, but the same happens again when I add a new code block. My "workaround" now is that before I start working on the .qmd file, I just add a bunch of Python code blocks (for which I also have a function) and then reconnect the language server again. This way I can start working for a while until I need to add more code blocks again.

This discussion has helped with some performance issues: https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/993.

I guess eglot doesn't support it yet: https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/pull/839

This is not by pure chance, João is the developer of the Eglot LSP client and the breadcrumbs from LSP-mode had been requested as a feature, but as far as I remember João thought rightfully that this could be an independent package, see https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/988

A substantial section of the community is using corfu instead of company, but I wouldn't say company is out of date by any means. In emacs 29 eglot will be a built in, which might act as a replacement for lsp-mode depending on what functionality you need.

I am currently running emacs 29 (built from emacs-29 branch) which – according to https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot – should contain the latest eglot.

Yep. You can use flymake or flycheck for that in combination with eglot or lsp-mode.

See https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot#diagnostics

(I have reported this (that is, ElDoc missing docs for callable things at point, when Eglot is enabled) as an issue recently: First on GitHub-discussions https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/discussions/1200, then on Debbugs https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62687. But the threads are very long, so I don't recommend reading them.)