From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Vinicius Jose Latorre Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: printing.el again Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:53:42 -0200 Message-ID: <419C00A6.90905@ig.com.br> References: <419779C4.50909@ig.com.br> <871xew44v1.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <41990B75.1080603@ig.com.br> <41994FFB.2060308@ig.com.br> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1100743000 19577 80.91.229.6 (18 Nov 2004 01:56:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:56:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 18 02:56:29 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CUbXA-0003AC-00 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:56:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CUbfz-0007c2-UY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:05:35 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CUbfm-0007aw-Ew for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:05:22 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CUbfl-0007ak-PI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:05:21 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CUbfl-0007ah-JY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:05:21 -0500 Original-Received: from [200.221.11.59] (helo=smtp.uol.com.br) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CUbWJ-0000nK-Hq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:55:35 -0500 Original-Received: from [200.213.106.228] (unknown [200.213.106.228]) by scorpion6.uol.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87CDD88BC; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:55:31 -0200 (BRST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8a4) Gecko/20040927 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Original-To: Stefan In-Reply-To: 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: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:29997 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:29997 Stefan wrote: >> Maybe this should be documented in Emacs Lisp Reference or in other >> suitable info, probably Byte Compiler Users Guide. Also other >> byte-compiler optimizations should be documented. > > > Actually, I don't think optimizations should be particularly mentioned. > The interesting part of optimizing (featurep 'xemacs) is that it > eliminates > spurious warnings. There are other ways to get the same effect, such as > what is done with (if (fboundp 'foo) ...) where the test is not optimized > away, but where warnings are selectively prevented. > > I think a chapter on "eliminating warnings" is in order to document > the use of > (featurep 'xemacs), (fboundp 'foo), (defvar foo), (with-no-warning > ...), ... Well, I think it's important to know the optimizations we can use or not and when. Does the byte-compiler try to optimize featurep in general or only the pattern (featurep 'xemacs) is optimized? That is, if I have a code which test (featurep 'some-package) and some-package is not loaded, does the byte-compiler eliminate the code associated with this test? Vinicius