From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Yikes! easy-menu-add is suddenly compiled to `ignore', without any warning. Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:32:08 +0000 Message-ID: References: <8335w2b9v6.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="18380"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: stefan@marxist.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 07 14:33:38 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lU7NK-0004aJ-0q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 14:33:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42552 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lU7NJ-0004wo-1h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 08:33:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56658) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lU7M3-000420-SE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 08:32:19 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:57919 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lU7Lw-0003kM-7E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 08:32:19 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 20744 invoked by uid 3782); 7 Apr 2021 12:32:09 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15d87.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.93.135]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 14:32:09 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 18429 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Apr 2021 12:32:08 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8335w2b9v6.fsf@gnu.org> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:267511 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 14:41:01 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:29:38 +0000 > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > Hello, Emacs and Stefan K. > > In Emacs 28, easy-menu-add is now compiled to `ignore'. This isn't > > friendly, particularly as in Emacs 27.2 and earlier, it just worked, > > without any warnings of impending obsoletion. > > The warning message Emacs 28.1 gives out is particularly unfriendly and > > unhelpful. It looks like this: > > cc-mode.el:2591:4: Warning: `easy-menu-add' is an obsolete function > > (as of 28.1); use `ignore' instead. > > Use `ignore' instead? > easy-menu-add was an alias of 'ignore' since 4 years ago. How come > it is suddenly an issue what it is compiled to? Are you sure the > issue isn't the obsolescence warning itself? that was indeed added > last November. The issue is indeed the warning message, from which I got the impression that menu functionality had been removed. The message appeared to be telling me not to bother about this apparent loss in functionality. It's a strange thing indeed to suggest using `ignore' in source code, except for certain specific reasons. Suggesting total removal of easy-menu-add, if there is a way of doing that, would be better. > > Why have we not followed the normal procedure here, by marking the > > function as obsolete, yet leaving it working, for one or two major > > versions, and only then removing it? > It wasn't removed, so the procedure followed here is indeed our usual > one. OK. The warning message was confusing, at least for me. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).