Re: [PATCH] Extra information in autoload error

[Alex]

Alex <address@hidden> writes:

> Davis Herring <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> +   error ("Autoloading failed to define function %s in file %s",
>>
>> I'd phrase it as "Autoloading file %s failed to define function %s". (It's a 
>> bit
>> odd to say the function is in the file when we've just learned it isn't.)
>>
>> Davis
>
> Thanks, I agree that it's better. I suppose I wanted to append rather
> than rewrite the message, but there's really no reason to hold back.
>
> The updated patches follow:
>
> diff --git a/src/eval.c b/src/eval.c
> index e08a25a..4daf052 100644
> --- a/src/eval.c
> +++ b/src/eval.c
> @@ -1987,7 +1987,8 @@ it defines a macro.  */)
>        Lisp_Object fun = Findirect_function (funname, Qnil);
>  
>        if (!NILP (Fequal (fun, fundef)))
> -     error ("Autoloading failed to define function %s",
> +     error ("Autoloading file %s failed to define function %s",
> +            SDATA (Fcar (Fcar (Vload_history))),
>              SDATA (SYMBOL_NAME (funname)));
>        else
>       return fun;
>
> diff --git a/src/eval.c b/src/eval.c
> index e08a25a..8c5c5e5 100644
> --- a/src/eval.c
> +++ b/src/eval.c
> @@ -1987,7 +1987,8 @@ it defines a macro.  */)
>        Lisp_Object fun = Findirect_function (funname, Qnil);
>  
>        if (!NILP (Fequal (fun, fundef)))
> -     error ("Autoloading failed to define function %s",
> +     error ("Autoloading filename %s failed to define function %s",
> +            SDATA (Fcar (Fcdr (fundef))),
>              SDATA (SYMBOL_NAME (funname)));
>        else
>       return fun;

Ping. Does anyone have an opinion on which of the two diffs is better?