Re: unload-feature questions and thoughts

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

"Juanma Barranquero" <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2/4/07, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> We had this discussion already.  IIRC, load could be used multiple
>> times and in so many contexts, that is was not reasonable to expect it
>> to be undoable.
>
> OTOH, `unload-feature' exists for a reason; and packages that do
> non-standard things (like redefining standard functions) can define
> their own unload functions.
>
> But question 3) was not about unloading, though I mentioned it at the
> end; it was about the difference in the resulting 'autoload property
> of function symbols depending on whether you use the autoloading vs.
> the normal load/require mechanisms.
>
>> Before we coded this hack, there was a discussion on emacs-devel
>> because I had been surprised, too.
>
> Couldn't AUCTeX just define AUCTeX-unload-hook and do whatever it is
> necessary?

It defines tex-site-unload-hook already.  But "whatever is necessary"
pretty much means restoring all functions overwritten by AUCTeX, and
there is no point in not using the autoload unloader for that.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum