Re: What happened to (defun x)?

[Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

  > Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> writes:
  > 
  > > mah@everybody.org (Mark A. Hershberger) writes:
  > >
  > >   > I have just merged a minimally tested nXML.  I merged all the
  > >   > char-name/unicode/*.el files for now because, while this information is
  > >   > in the unicode branch, it isn't in HEAD.  That still needs to be sorted
  > >   > out.
  > >
  > > Could you please fix the byte compile warnings?  We are trying to
  > > eliminate all the byte compiler warnings.
  > > The free variable and defsubst warnings have been fixed in the rest of
  > > emacs code.  
  > > Also it looks like all the the char-name/unicode/*.el files need a 
  > > (declare-function nxml-define-char-name-set at the start.
  > 
  > I might have missed the discussion: pre-22 we had considered having
  > (defun nxml-define-char-name-set)
  > be a byte-compiler silencer in the same manner as
  > (defvar preview-version)
  > is a byte-compiler silencer.  The obvious advantage over
  > "declare-function" is that one does not need to remember another idiom
  > and name.
  > 
  > Is there a particular advantage for a separate declare-function that I
  > just am not able to see?

`declare-function' was the result of a long, long discussion on this
list. Please read that discussion and the reasons this design was chosen
before restarting the same discussion again. At least restart the
discussion from an informed position.