Re: Flycheck reports are never satisfying!?

[Stefan Monnier]

> That would make a lot of sense, IMHO.

I could consider inclusion of such a patch.

> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> (when (try-require 'blah)
>   ...)
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> Would there be a solution?

No, the compiler doesn't know anything about try-require.

> Would replacing `try-require' by a `require' with all the necessary
> parameters (in order not to stop if the package is missing) be OK?
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> (when (require 'blah nil t)
>   ...)
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> Would this last construct work?  If yes, I'm willing to use it instead
> of my `try-require'...

Maybe we could make it work, yes.

Still, there's a problem: one of the reasons to try and byte-compile the
.emacs file is so as to give warnings to the user about use of obsolete
variables and functions.

But for that to work well (i.e. used all the time by default),
byte-compilation should be quick and lightweight.

But that won't work if we start pre-loading eagerly all those packages
that the user is painstaking trying to load lazily.

I have this nagging feeling that we can't make it work by just
byte-compiling the .emacs in the same way as any other Elisp package.
Maybe rather than re-using the byte-compiler's warnings, we really need
a specialized tool for that.


        Stefan