From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Has eval-and-compile changed in emacs 27? Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:54:43 -0500 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39164"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Leo Liu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 26 05:17:30 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 1lFUZG-000A51-9q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 05:17:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46190 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lFUZF-00018d-9i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 23:17:29 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40534) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lFUDM-0004ty-LC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:54:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:32383) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lFUDH-0000zI-Ml for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:54:51 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0482980C68; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:54:46 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4D5D480229; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:54:44 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1614311684; bh=RbJiFW7m3/hfoNDZQBwcgcYEgQffKwiiBHxAH+4OyHk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=K7Gck8jSX+b+J3a4pd4KLSeNtbu1ScE8DeKqjsG3ARyHaSeqrJHQjzgvHl1wHTCOJ viw5mg4foAG2N1u/0MPh9HiLSgEYQ73VdNG0bJr7Xm+LczQU/os5aC4jpTkPtJzHpb 20HFNVH8BnnBUP6ZVNui18ifJeo2SzV03+4GsTfXSroaZo9m/FFMYnPm60fdJvXjLc dbiJfpFxsN/CVZQqQo8zxhQFT5xmjbeGaC5FBjZ7sjcOycB4V5Tabo8tQ+OBDruskm Bk2yBKDAuFijFH3mFp16KUX2IaKk6cOaTKh1vDegVSXmZrs0IjQfLCxeWuHrRvIz5l qs6Ey+ffoSfNA== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.41.47]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1F25112015F; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:54:44 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Leo Liu's message of "Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:40:12 +0800") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham 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:265657 Archived-At: >> That one's easy: the way the warning works is that when we process >> a `eval-when-compile` we look at the `load-history` to see the functions >> that have been defined during execution of its body, and then we remember >> those as "only available now but maybe not at runtime". >> >> If that loaded `cl-lib`, then a subsequent (require 'cl-lib) will be >> a no-op and won't "unremember" the corresponding functions. > > This sounds like nightmare :( > > Is this new in Emacs 27? No, it was new back when we added the "not known to exist at run-time", i.e. a long time ago. > What prompted the change? We found it useful to try and warn the users when they did (eval-when-compile (require FOO)) but FOO was also needed at run time. Stefan