Re: Strange eval-after-load

[Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>]

Morning, Richard!

On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 07:21:15PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     I think people will either just quietly commit
>     eval-after-loads, or they'll write clumsy abstruse workarounds.
 
> If people try to sneak them in, I will do something about them.

:-)
 
> The "clumsy workarounds" might actually be superior, for maintenance
> purposes.  That's the reason for this policy: so people will take the
> trouble to use those "clumsy" workarounds, instead of taking the
> inferior lazy way out.

Richard, please tell me what's wrong with using eval-after-load.

I've been trying to get an answer to this question in post after post
after post, and all replies have been evasive.  Everybody else has been
writing as though it were perfectly obvious and uncontrovertible that
eval-after-load is bad.  It's anything but obvious to me.

If you don't want to give me an answer, for whatever reason, please tell
me explicitly.  That would be OK too.

-- 
Alan.