From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#25627: 25.1; `help-make-xrefs' loads `cl-extra.el' now Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:57:16 -0500 Message-ID: <87y3xhmg9f.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> References: <82c8d359-fd05-4bff-9dba-29d2738d435d@default> <87d1euolzv.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <5f457952-82ca-4a77-8061-1b2e366fcfb2@default> <3abd0b72-e875-4c07-bdc2-4aa62de2c55e@default> <0c0b574f-880d-4b99-9e14-6c4b29cab1f4@default> <87a89xo376.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <6cb3cd2a-e972-4542-b85a-7c3d0f18e097@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486529831 13276 195.159.176.226 (8 Feb 2017 04:57:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 04:57:11 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) Cc: Philipp Stephani , 25627@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 08 05:57:07 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cbKJW-0003Fr-8e for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 05:57:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57712 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbKJc-0003Gy-0U for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:57:12 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44674) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbKJW-0003GX-CD for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:57:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbKJT-0001fU-BW for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:57:06 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:33134) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbKJT-0001de-8E for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:57:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cbKJS-0002Ww-IQ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:57:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 04:57:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 25627 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: notabug Original-Received: via spool by 25627-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B25627.14865297759641 (code B ref 25627); Wed, 08 Feb 2017 04:57:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 25627) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Feb 2017 04:56:15 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59566 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cbKIh-0002VR-5W for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:56:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172]:33252) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cbKIe-0002VB-N5 for 25627@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:56:13 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id v96so107730680ioi.0 for <25627@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 20:56:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=AZzMuQlrbP1WL9mnUNwFBq7yOPU77Tx6GtqD+tPHiIE=; b=rWSAQ+7ldBHAp8t0WzAXAjqbEgEVRkNG8zyw03gfSgAvku85Zy6lwIkfgLAOmjrbSS +bPkDJbjWcDH2HQlTF+qlkOK10nwZsHBpYz1oTzxz2IDt79+xF0qakqa3ikBoaiTgvuX dEPfHBbJ4cUh8SlabHZyd33l7qE+2Q/c2SKD2JhETX2egL+/j6lC4AKu/5gOaMLBQnqI MjsWdefJ6iZCKxC1Pn+LIliVJ/XQ29+YVAd/j1iXnaPY+yKsatiujFLLfnKchgzmYZma mBGgagJbVIqE8Yzs9iIaTW9NqB4DUrqDaJD9bP+GRn4dbMciSRa9y5zL1h/lnymsP30p q82A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=AZzMuQlrbP1WL9mnUNwFBq7yOPU77Tx6GtqD+tPHiIE=; b=rvOfY9oYnwzxtgNquoZy0UQdOE9tACUFDqFSqPhaQZ/yviBynTxpjerM7q0Uloi2nH P9YHJ/XwS2IwQrqk7W4Y9wndrRFav2b17eX85Gx8rxR/LygdeJ8+VTQmq0o8adFcAfjB WcoG++4605MUyfalWitKzK2oJUugey/yGbmXOdd5wlICVOdMeSV5LnvTgTcmP0KISo1O 5DsXeRt7hGucKSMtopDzy1rd3WAUgURyVnbXd1DRKGrf/gLWjrU8e0Wthm+MS3s2ACTV DVNPSznRfFaozdQ6Ax2qr4ECCLUapd/Poo84VzsC3yU+7EQl0fqAzZ4LvnLIFmP+6cuT hkpA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lBCr4nkBT13h5PHXPCff8YVSvX5geRSIEm6+zoMZDZTWN7PrFiWx01nx0QDNk0BQ== X-Received: by 10.107.7.78 with SMTP id 75mr8531940ioh.165.1486529767230; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 20:56:07 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from zony ([45.2.7.65]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id j74sm10740150iod.44.2017.02.07.20.56.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 07 Feb 2017 20:56:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6cb3cd2a-e972-4542-b85a-7c3d0f18e097@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:59:53 -0800 (PST)") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:129115 Archived-At: Drew Adams writes: >> > Why don't more (even most) of the files distributed with >> > Emacs have this variable set (to non-nil)? >> >> Loading functions one by one can be slower than loading them all at >> once. Some justification would be needed for adding this (e.g., if a >> file contains many independent functions that would usually be used in >> isolation). > > Yes, I read that. A guess would be that that would be the case > for many more files than the few that use it now. > > Files could also be split, to factor out functions for which > that is true. Possibly, but I would guess the benefits of doing this would be rather tiny. I mean, the best we can hope for is to save a few hundred kilobytes of RAM, right?