From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: cc-vars.el Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:29:39 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <20021120212939.GA29543@gnu.org> References: <200211180057.JAA24537@etlken.m17n.org> <5bbs4m8qz9.fsf@lister.roxen.com> <5bwun97ecw.fsf@lister.roxen.com> <20021119165749.GA27657@gnu.org> <5b65utkyqt.fsf@lister.roxen.com> <200211201358.gAKDwsG21304@rum.cs.yale.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1037827902 32553 80.91.224.249 (20 Nov 2002 21:31:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:31:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Miles Bader , Martin Stjernholm , Dave Love , Kenichi Handa , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18EcRJ-0008SK-00 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:31:17 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18EcUf-0001W0-00 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:34:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18EcQT-0002ws-00; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:30:25 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 18EcPx-0002hB-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:29:53 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 18EcPq-0002Xq-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:29:52 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18EcPp-0002WF-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:29:45 -0500 Original-Received: from miles by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18EcPj-00081T-00; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:29:39 -0500 Original-To: Stefan Monnier Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200211201358.gAKDwsG21304@rum.cs.yale.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Blat: Foop Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:9580 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:9580 On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:58:54AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > This way we could even add an "ignore pragmas" flag for > people who like to get all the warnings. [we can do this regardless] > As for whether or not pragmas will ever be made unnecessary, my opinion > is that it seems highly unlikely that we'll ever get the byte-compiler > to understand all the cases where a function call is safe. No one ever said we could; clearly _that's_ hard. My question is whether we we need `explicit pragmas' as opposed to `implied pragmas' (as illustrated). If not, then we can just document `if you don't want warnings, use one of these simple code patterns in this case'. I know that in my own usage of fboundp checks, at least, is pretty limited to a small set of common pattersn like the ones I listed. So are there some other uses that don't easily fit? What are they? It's not that I hate explicit pragmas with a passion or anything; if someone can get something past rms, I guess that's fine with me; but no one's presented much evidence in this thread that they're actually needed, and it'd be nice to see what things they _are_ needed for -- and anyway, we need that to design the pragmas anyway... Did I miss something? -Miles -- P.S. All information contained in the above letter is false, for reasons of military security.