From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make byte-compile-error-on-warn a safe variable for file compilation Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 21:36:37 +0200 Message-ID: <83zi5l4ibe.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87wp0yhsgu.fsf@cochranmail.com> <87vaggrfqo.fsf@cochranmail.com> <87r2r2txqp.fsf@cochranmail.com> <87373fpujo.fsf@cochranmail.com> <87zi5mcjnh.fsf@cochranmail.com> <83inc968gs.fsf@gnu.org> <837esp663j.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1515612908 7747 195.159.176.226 (10 Jan 2018 19:35:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:35:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Noam Postavsky Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 10 20:35:03 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1eZM9O-0001cx-IF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:35:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34788 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eZMBO-0006m5-3U for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:37:06 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42323) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eZMBE-0006lW-9l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:36:57 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eZMBB-0004eY-3W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:36:56 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:58808) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eZMBA-0004eI-RZ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:36:52 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2467 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1eZMB9-0004Jy-0p; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:36:52 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Noam Postavsky on Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:29:45 -0500) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:221807 Archived-At: > From: Noam Postavsky > Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:29:45 -0500 > Cc: Stefan Monnier , Emacs developers > > >> Since this autoload vs :safe property consideration applies more > >> generally, shouldn't we rather explain in it in the manual? > > > > I think we should do both. The fact that some unusual technique is in > > the manual doesn't yet mean commentary about it will be redundant. > > But there are many other cases of this autoloaded put, should we > comment on all of them? Maybe we should do that on more than just this one. But even a thousand-mile journey begins with a single step. Did you never have this moment of staring at a piece of code that doesn't explain itself and has no comments, and wondering why the heck did they do it that way? It is not easy to find answers to such questions, even if they are in some manual.