Re: Adding use-package to ELPA

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

Philip Kaludercic [2022-03-08 08:21:50] wrote:
> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>> True, so this is certainly worth investigating.  Yet this is only part
>>> of the problem, as function have a similar pattern, but they cannot
>>> reliably be detected in this way.  E.g.
>>>
>>>   (setup foo (:hook bar))
>>>
>>> wouldn't be able to infer that bar is a function that exists, just
>>> because it is being added to foo-bar-mode.
>>
>> There should be some reason to believe that `bar` will exist.
>> Without more info about where `bar` will come from, I can't begin this
>> think about how we can arrange to silence this warning.
>
> I'm not sure if we had discussed this before, but couldn't the
> initialisation file receive a different treatment by the byte-compiler,
> than other files?

*The* init file, yes, of course it could.
But that won't help for people who split it into several files.
So, it's better if we can avoid such ad-hoc solutions.

> Never mind this, the issue was that I overwrote
> `macroexpand-all-environment', breaking macroexp-compiling-p.
> With this issue fixed, these warnings are fixed.

Great,


        Stefan