[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#11106: 24.0.94; enhancement request: have autoload treat faces like
bug#11106: 24.0.94; enhancement request: have autoload treat faces like it does options
Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:45:34 -0400
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux)
> No special problem for #1. It's not completely clear to me how an
> option is handled, but clearly the defcustom is not simply copied to
> the autoloads file.
Indeed, but it's supposed to be an internal detail (i.e. an optimization).
>> I can't assume it, since you're trying to explain to me why that would
>> be useful.
> No, I was not trying to explain why autoloading faces can be useful in
Then you were not trying to answer my question (which was not "in
general" but at least in one scenario, by the way).
> As to the assumption of usefulness in general, since that is
> apparently a stumbling block for you: Why, in your opinion, can (real)
> autoloading be useful for a command but not for an option or a face?
Because the user can invoke commands, but not faces (with very few
> IOW, why do we have function `autoload' for functions? Why not just
> use autoload cookies and have them simply copy a function's defun to
> the autoloads file (i.e., not handle functions specially)?
Because a function usually depends on its surrounding code, so copying
its body without its surroundings would not result in a usable function.
Because such autoloaded functions are simply entry points to the package
and it's convenient to be able to auto-load the package without having to
`require' it explicitly.
> The same reason applies to options and functions: real autoloading has a use,
> independent of the use of predefinition.
I don't see how faces generally depend on their surrounding code.
I don't see how the use of a face will often lead to the use of the rest
of the package where it's defined.
[ I stopped here, sorry, too long. ]