Fix #411 Allow to specify kind of code action to execute

[muffinmad]

Make eglot-code-actions accept action-kind argument. If there are
only one action of that kind, apply it.
This will allow to create shortcuts for actions of the specific kind.

• eglot.el (aglot--region-bounds): New function.
  (eglot-code-actions): Use it; Accept new argument action-kind.
  Execute the only action of that kind.
  (eglot-code-action-inline, eglot-code-action-extract,
  eglot-code-action-rewrite, eglot-code-action-quickfix,
  eglot-code-action-organize-imports): New commands.
• NEWS.md: New entry.
• README.md (Commands and keybindings): Mention changes to the
  eglot-code-actions function; Mention new commands.

[joaotavora]

This will allow to create actions shortcuts like

These shortcuts may be simple enough that they can be in eglot.el itself. But I don't see why they shouldn't also take beg and end, for completeness.

[muffinmad]

This will allow to create actions shortcuts like

These shortcuts may be simple enough that they can be in eglot.el itself. But I don't see why they shouldn't also take beg and end, for completeness.

Agree. If you think those shortcuts are not worth a separate PR, I can add it here.

[joaotavora]

Please try to do the Lisp refactorings I suggest, otherwise go ahead and I'll do this cleanup later. Conceptually, I think the code is clean.

[joaotavora]

Agree. If you think those shortcuts are not worth a separate PR, I can add it here.

Agree. Add them here. Maybe in a separate commit, but not strictly necessary.

[joaotavora]

If you add the shortcuts, edit the README.md file too to mention them. Also, edit the NEWS.md file if you can find a terse way to describe this feature.

[muffinmad]

Ok, will do in a few days. Thanks!

[mdbergmann]

Just to confirm that the code as it is seems to work with either code-actions provided by menu and clicking them, and executing a code-action as the example for organize imports at the top post here.

[muffinmad]

Anyway, please change back to default

Can we keep default-action? IMO it looks better combined with preferred-action.

[joaotavora]

Can we keep default-action? IMO it looks better combined with preferred-action.

Sure, of course. Though I personally would do default + preferred. But the level of nitpickery is getting extreme here.

[joaotavora]

I've tweaked this PR. It's ready for squashing and pushing IMO (after commit msg where I should appear as Co-authored-by). But have a look at the tweaks I made and let me know.

BTW your macro was fine, but some people including me, prefer macros to not secretly intern symbols, since it helps when finding definitions. A function defining macro should theoretically be called define-foo, but I let that go here in favour of some terse and readable one-liners.

[muffinmad]

I've tweaked this PR. It's ready for squashing and pushing IMO (after commit msg where I should appear as Co-authored-by). But have a look at the tweaks I made and let me know.

Looks absolutely good to me.

BTW your macro was fine, but some people including me, prefer macros to not secretly intern symbols, since it helps when finding definitions. A function defining macro should theoretically be called define-foo, but I let that go here in favour of some terse and readable one-liners.

Got it. Thanks!