From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What happened to (defun x)? Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:48:01 +0100 Message-ID: <4748AA21.9090807@gmx.at> References: <87k5o9h25c.fsf@everybody.org> <200711242144.lAOLi93Q006275@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> <85bq9juwuf.fsf_-_@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1195944548 3965 80.91.229.12 (24 Nov 2007 22:49:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:49:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Mark A. Hershberger" , Dan Nicolaescu , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 24 23:49:14 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Iw3mm-0007D1-MI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:47:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iw3mX-0000ov-RL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:47:25 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iw3mT-0000lg-9P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:47:21 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iw3mR-0000ik-Tg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:47:20 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iw3mR-0000ie-LI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:47:19 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Iw3mR-0003rC-1g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:47:19 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2007 22:47:18 -0000 Original-Received: from N939P002.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.61.66]) [62.47.61.66] by mail.gmx.net (mp051) with SMTP; 24 Nov 2007 23:47:18 +0100 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19ST9J/zfpSZ7jMxieQVQRCx4DBvUqEoVR41ivSJk XBEuYHW+1jRIQj User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en In-Reply-To: <85bq9juwuf.fsf_-_@lola.goethe.zz> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:84081 Archived-At: > I might have missed the discussion: pre-22 we had considered having > (defun nxml-define-char-name-set) > be a byte-compiler silencer in the same manner as > (defvar preview-version) > is a byte-compiler silencer. The obvious advantage over > "declare-function" is that one does not need to remember another idiom > and name. > > Is there a particular advantage for a separate declare-function that I > just am not able to see? It's a question of strong vs weak type-checking. The advantage of strong type-checking is to catch errors sooner - in the special case because a particular file fails to define a declared function. Its disadvantage is that you can no more move a defun to another file without finding and changing all files that have a declaration for it.