>From my previous message: There is the question of whether my changes should be reverted. They do not result in any change in behavior whatsoever, but they avoid confusion for somebody who expands the macro to see what the define-minor-mode form he wrote really does (as anybody who uses define-minor-mode should do). So it seems that my changes actually were positive, even though not really necessary. It is a little bit inconsistent to do this for :initialize and not for :set and :type, but since :initialize will be used more often, it might make sense.
More precisely, without my changes, if you specify an explicit :initialize keyword, the expansion of the define-minor-mode form contains two :initialize keywords, first ":initialize 'custom-initialize-default" and then, at some later place the explicit :initialize. The last one, the explicit :initialize wins, but since the two may be separated by other code, it might confuse the person reading the expanded version of the macro. With my changes (that is with current CVS), the defcustom has only one :initialize form, the explicitly specified one. However, explicitly specified :set or :type keywords still expand to defcustoms with two :set or :type keywords. Sincerely, Luc. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
