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: Adding use-package to ELPA Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2022 09:22:55 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87k0dbi7ol.fsf@posteo.net> <871qzgyfuo.fsf@posteo.net> <87ilsre5jf.fsf@posteo.net> <87zgm2bpez.fsf@posteo.net> <87ilsp4lc8.fsf@posteo.net> <87wnh52w8e.fsf@posteo.net> <87fsns3lcx.fsf@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32187"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: chad , EMACS development team To: Philip Kaludercic Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 08 15:24:12 2022 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 1nRal0-00086r-Vk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2022 15:24:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54228 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRakz-0007Vu-GG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2022 09:24:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55366) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRajv-0006eY-Ja for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2022 09:23:03 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:9511) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRajs-0002sr-O4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2022 09:23:02 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id ADA971001CB; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:22:58 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 06A52100120; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:22:57 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1646749377; bh=NQnsmTo6Flw9gaXtUjLp5FIwmQv+cA2ywwXQmtomF9c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=N0JgcQBTynf0Arfh4HpaG22R5gRZblVa6CPVZGeMMpcl0iBwEhSzFAlhxJLrXnwSD PhAf4/Jr36worDZC2FMc6hjbQF3z5j11XyO/zPjy+dNZMreX+7d3DuyaS/9zZBA3th It1VkiDoSlwMG9mv5auw5dKIztNd6EzlnL8Bh000o+v8R/7C3zj9yrYKYlQivOly3Y KForL8jK1shPgVaMyO4G60yfQclDkuuLwlkmB6jDE7Y3/DyUisCrwC/Lwp1q7UpcD1 iu5dK9Gt7XCA16VCVFS8OxJnR8nZSsQULfiYcZTxGfkgGQctZfHr15S0BxzchawFZT QYE4/VW4hcFtg== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.221.51]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ACCCD120228; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:22:56 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87fsns3lcx.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Tue, 08 Mar 2022 08:21:50 +0000") 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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:286924 Archived-At: Philip Kaludercic [2022-03-08 08:21:50] wrote: > Stefan Monnier 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