From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: byte-compile-nogroup-warn effectively disabled Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 06:55:04 -0700 Message-ID: <002a01c8ca38$6bfed020$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> References: <001901c8c9fc$7b2960b0$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> <871w37qbmj.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1213019883 29844 80.91.229.12 (9 Jun 2008 13:58:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 13:58:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Stefan Monnier' , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "'Stephen J. Turnbull'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 09 15:58:42 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K5hsZ-0003iI-5L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:57:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39436 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K5hrm-0003mJ-0s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:56:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K5hrh-0003j9-J1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:56:53 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K5hrg-0003fb-0S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:56:53 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47143 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K5hrf-0003fJ-SG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:56:51 -0400 Original-Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]:40062) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K5hrY-00054w-Ht; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:56:44 -0400 Original-Received: from agmgw1.us.oracle.com (agmgw1.us.oracle.com [152.68.180.212]) by agminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id m59DufWB014488; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:56:41 -0500 Original-Received: from acsmt350.oracle.com (acsmt350.oracle.com [141.146.40.150]) by agmgw1.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.0/Switch-3.2.0) with ESMTP id m5987q8r009216; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 07:56:41 -0600 Original-Received: from inet-141-146-46-1.oracle.com by acsmt350.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3688267081213019697; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:54:57 -0700 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/24.5.171.3) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:54:57 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-reply-to: <871w37qbmj.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Thread-Index: AcjKBbDO1G04wn57SAq1FkTab3cMpQAL14+Q X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:98802 Archived-At: > > 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.