Re: bytecomp warning for CL functions

[Juanma Barranquero <lektu@terra.es>]

On 18 Jul 2002 19:48:38 +0100, Dave Love <d.love@dl.ac.uk> wrote:

> Comments:
> 
> 1. The warning is being issued correctly.

Perhaps, but if defadvice has been patched to stop it, that must mean
that it was useless and annoying nonetheless.

> 2. It's not a good idea to load cl in .emacs -- you can fail to spot
>    problems, apart from the bloat.

Oh, come on. I happen to *like* cl and don't consider it a bloat.
Obviously it is a matter of taste, but I feel vaguely offensive that you
answer to a comment about a newly introduced warning saying what I
should do with my .emacs.

As two recent posters on gnu.emacs.help have said:

"You don't need (require 'cl) though I expect like me you have it in
your .emacs file somewhere so you never quite know whether you need it
or not." (Rob Thorpe)

"The proper place for '(require 'cl)' is in your .emacs file, at the top
level :)" (Marco Antoniotti)

> 3. You can turn off implicit compilation by defadvice.

Yes.

> 4. defadvice should normally be avoided, apart from the bloat.

Again, I don't consider it bloat. And I don't know why should I avoid it.
AFAICS there's a policy of avoiding it in modules, but for my own
customizations? What is advice.el intended for, if not that?

> If a modification you want to make with it is useful, it normally
> indicates the lack of a hook.  I'd just copy the function and
> modify it to avoid sucking in advice in a case like that.

Are you suggesting that would be better to copy the eight functions I'm
currently advising to my .emacs and then manually monitoring if they
ever change in their original sources?

Excuse me, but I think you're taking your likes or dislikes as a measure
of what's good for another user...


                                                           /L/e/k/t/u