From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Suggestion: Let the help command load autoloaded functions etc Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:45:18 +0100 Message-ID: <476CEABE.3040308@gmail.com> References: <47696238.6050601@gmail.com> <476B7BA6.80903@gmail.com> <476B990A.80602@gnu.org> <476BE7C7.2020005@gmail.com> <87zlw3qane.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <476CEA0B.1090501@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1198320368 833 80.91.229.12 (22 Dec 2007 10:46:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:46:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Thien-Thi Nguyen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 22 11:46:20 2007 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 1J61s4-0005O4-0b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:46:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J61rk-0003Wc-4E for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 05:46:00 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J61rg-0003W7-1h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 05:45:56 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J61re-0003Vb-Jw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 05:45:55 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J61re-0003VR-9i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 05:45:54 -0500 Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J61rd-0003h5-SL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 05:45:54 -0500 Original-Received: from c83-254-148-228.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.148.228]:64127 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J61rc-000371-3b; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:45:52 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <476CEA0B.1090501@gmail.com> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071221-0, 2007-12-21), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.148.228 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1J61rc-000371-3b. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1J61rc-000371-3b bdebc88c44c4937a371efebf1ea7b1ff X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) 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:85371 Archived-At: Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote: > Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote: >> () Richard Stallman >> () Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:30:15 -0500 >> >> That would be an ok feature, since it >> would not do anything automatically. >> >> i don't think it would be always ok. for example, consider a set >> of interdependent libraries misbehaving when components are loaded >> in the wrong order. the result is curiosity- but not necessarily >> user-induced bug reports. i would hate to have this conversation: >> >> user : i clicked on "foo link" and emacs barfed: FOO-ERROR. >> programmer: well don't do that. >> u: well, why is that link displayed? >> p: because we don't handle "improper load sequence". >> u: what is the "proper load sequence"? >> p: advertized entry point is M-x bar RET. >> u: what does that have to do w/ foo? >> p: nothing. >> u: ??? >> >> in other words, i personally am disinclined to support this kind >> of fuzziness (entering the subroutine from the side). > > > But that should not happen for autoloaded functions, or? I mean autoloaded commands.