On 5/10/06, Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, May 10 2006, Reiner Steib wrote:> I still think we should avoid printing byte-code even in case third > party libraries forget to quote a lambda expression. I noticed that we also get byte-code for the `allout.el' variables like `allout-numbered-bullet'. This happens because Ken Manheimer (cc-ed) used... ;;;###autoload (put 'allout-numbered-bullet 'safe-local-variable (lambda (x) (or (not x) (stringp x)))) ... instead of... ;;;###autoload(put 'allout-numbered-bullet 'safe-local-variable (lambda (x) (or (not x) (stringp x)))) ... (and similar for other many other variables) in `allout.el'.
i haven't seen some of this conversation (i looked in the archive, and these messages aren't there yet), and i'm not clear whether something is being requested here. i deliberately chose to use the form that defines the variables in the file's bytecode, as well as in loaddefs, because i want to be able to use the most recent version of allout in versions of emacs that are not built with allout (eg, the old emacs version i'm running on my zaurus). i would like to be able to use the same source code in such cases. (i imagine other people might be in the same situation.) i haven't seen drawbacks in doing it this way, and so went with it. i don't want to make allout objectionable for distribution with emacs, and am willing to conform to the conventions, if necessary. is having the definitions exist only in loaddefs being asked, or will it be enough to have the active definitions in allout as well, but quote the lambda expressions so they're not byte-compiled (and so don't clutter the help)? (i will respond to reiner's subsequent message separately.) -- ken manheimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myriadicity.net _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
