It is not _file_ foo, but _function_ foo that did (require 'bar).
Why is it useful to record that? For what purpose?
It isn't particularly useful, but it is hard to avoid.
Frequire does the same things, whether `require' was called
from a Lisp function or from code at top level in a file
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (require 'ft) only loads a file if 'ft is not in features. However,
> it unconditionally adds '(require . ft) to current-load-list. If you
> call a function with require a million times, this eats up 16 MB of
> memory.
>
> This was d
(require 'ft) only loads a file if 'ft is not in features. However,
it unconditionally adds '(require . ft) to current-load-list. If you
call a function with require a million times, this eats up 16 MB of
memory.
This was done deliberately. The idea is that it's useful
to record
Lute Kamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim F. Storm) writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> Putting require into a function _does_ slow it down.
>
> I decided to test this. The speed effect is really minimal,
I guess it depends on how deep down in the require alist, the symbol
is located
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim F. Storm) writes:
[...]
> Putting require into a function _does_ slow it down.
I decided to test this. The speed effect is really minimal, but I did
discover a more serious problem with putting a require inside a
function that is called often.
(require 'ft) only loads a
Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I have committed the changes to Gnus v5-10 branch. If anyone want to
> handle the compiler differently, feel free to change it.
I'd prefer to handle it like in the patch below. If the function
message-make-date or nnimap-date-days-ago is called
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Apr 5, 2005 4:14 PM, Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Can't you move this closer to the definition of message-make-date?
>> >> It's only necessary to suppress compiler warnings for that function.
>> >
>> > I put it inside the defun.
>>
>>
On Apr 5, 2005 4:14 PM, Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Can't you move this closer to the definition of message-make-date?
> >> It's only necessary to suppress compiler warnings for that function.
> >
> > I put it inside the defun.
>
> Doing that will slow down the function, so if tha
Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Can't you move this closer to the definition of message-make-date?
>> It's only necessary to suppress compiler warnings for that function.
>
> I put it inside the defun.
Doing that will slow down the function, so if that function is used
a lot, I think
>>> (eval-when-compile
>>> (require 'cl)
>>> (defvar parse-time-weekdays) ;; parse-time is required where necessary
>>> (defvar parse-time-months)
Why not (require 'parse-time) simply?
This way if parse-time is ever changed to remove parse-time-months, the
byte-compiler will correctly catch
On Mon, Apr 04 2005, Lute Kamstra wrote:
> Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> --- message.el 30 Mar 2005 08:14:32 - 1.75
>> +++ message.el 4 Apr 2005 11:36:12 -
>> @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@
>>
>> (eval-when-compile
>>(require 'cl)
>> + (defvar parse-time-weekdays)
Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I removed (require 'parse-time) from time-date because it uses just
>> parse-time-string, which is autoloaded. Do I understand correctly my
>> change uncovered some bugs in nnimap.el, nnultimate.el and pop3.el? I
>> already noticed (and fixed) this for
Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Wouldn't it be better to put (require 'parse-time) at the beginning of
>>> the file instead of inside `message-make-date'?
>>
>> message-make-date is the only function in message.el that uses
>> parse-time, so it's best to put the require there. If you
On Thu, Mar 31 2005, Lute Kamstra wrote:
> Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed, Mar 30 2005, Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:
>>> There's no ChangeLog for the recent changes of time-date.el and
>>> I don't know who did it for what purpose,
[...]
>> ,[ lisp/ChangeLog ]
>> | 2005-03-23 Lu
On Mon, Apr 04 2005, Lute Kamstra wrote:
> Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Wouldn't it be better to put (require 'parse-time) at the beginning of
>> the file instead of inside `message-make-date'?
>
> message-make-date is the only function in message.el that uses
> parse-time, so it's
I gather from this message that time-date's home is actually Gnus'
CVS?
That may have been true in the past, but nowadays time-date.el is an
ordinary file of Emacs, maintained the same way as most Emacs files.
As far as we are concerned it is not a part of Gnus.
___
Lute Kamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I gather from this message that time-date's home is actually Gnus'
> CVS? I wasn't aware of that.
It does seem to have been originally written by the Gnus authors, but
who knows where its "home" is these days; it exists in both CVS trees
anyway.
> In Em
Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 30 2005, Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:
>
>> There's no ChangeLog for the recent changes of time-date.el and
>> I don't know who did it for what purpose,
>
> [ I'm adding emacs-devel. ]
> In Emacs, `time-date.el' is located in the calendar subdirecto
On Mar 31, 2005 8:27 PM, Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's no ChangeLog for the recent changes of time-date.el and
> > I don't know who did it for what purpose,
>
> [ I'm adding emacs-devel. ]
> In Emacs, `time-date.el' is located in the calendar subdirectory.
> Probably Miles' s
On Wed, Mar 30 2005, Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:
> There's no ChangeLog for the recent changes of time-date.el and
> I don't know who did it for what purpose,
[ I'm adding emacs-devel. ]
In Emacs, `time-date.el' is located in the calendar subdirectory.
Probably Miles' script cannot fetch the ChangeLo
20 matches
Mail list logo
