RE: byte-compile-nogroup-warn effectively disabled

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

>  > There is no reason at all to assume that the next option in the
>  > file should have the same group(s) as the previous one.
> 
> That's not what Stefan said, he said it gets the last group defined
> (which I assume means defgroup'ed) in the file.

Then I misunderstood that part; sorry. But it's irrelevant to the points I
raised. However the group is chosen from among those groups defined in the file,
there is no reason to assume that it is the appropriate one for defcustoms that
have no :group.

(I assume nothing happens if no group is defined in the file, even if there are
some :groups used in some defcustoms.)

Wrt to the rest of what you write, it seems you are arguing that it might be
convenient for some people who follow certain coding practices, since it would
mean they could skip the burden of adding :group to each definition, with the
side benefit of less verbose code.

That doesn't sound convincing, to me. This convenience for some in some use
cases will open the door to errors by all.

The one case where it might be relatively benign is if there is only one group
definition in the file, which you say is your common use case anyway.