From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Berman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: eval, load and -l Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:42:13 +0200 Message-ID: <871t381fca.fsf@gmx.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467718960 26806 80.91.229.3 (5 Jul 2016 11:42:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:42:40 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 05 13:42:31 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bKOkI-0007Xk-3D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:42:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54060 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKOkE-00080Z-2M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 07:42:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51761) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKOk7-0007t8-Ko for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 07:42:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKOk3-0004O1-CU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 07:42:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:61567) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKOk3-0004Nv-28 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 07:42:15 -0400 Original-Received: from rosalinde ([89.245.65.12]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M0xbD-1bZzaM3kkB-00v9ne for ; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:42:14 +0200 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:siVz8+1NDvgvoxOxVEHSK2a2/VNcdp4o3gVxQxTiypYgFI3fs77 15eI93SeTWy3GYRcosIwbwSIBi2rMRL061s1a2fIQBSz0DxhmcJdgFYkFRskF665937ZrZ8 7L6JVsHZamoPCg0pHpJAJYZsxRsmQRel1MMVJFlKO1szSnlQURE5XjedhqxvVGp2kYdwq4z lO3gD5Iy13TWAXdsnhwQg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:mRbR7PW6O0o=:Z5IOaUU+rQGhVhBSYFag8s K8UF4XoaR10jZ80rHwSxbvQ63ExxGcZsKv7SyE1zQIaXgKm2i6SDKaKlu2QbRwh0ToMz+h2q+ FsrntBsYxRZ9QO+LxePD1lW7tqD5a2y38HpxmDt1j7y0oEvtO398goVh6V1q/61OXkSUm/Drm agyMAHmJMIDXA+xLRyBX7Db5cY9S5N0ivxjDP0Aj2Ti1PmRAFoZqM2bkR5P+PJ3CZYzxhEK+N oBIw2vb1I8veIQ2uYZq0pL5M8CYxPmvP4i/iO0FV6YSyav1eVqIraUbALhIBHbYPv1YMhqP7S kNwjTXVRbfvAIDj+vWn6dMjX1XmWYlp1fY+f61/kxybNp5JG0kK2bLIKuELjAuwy7x3qsH6zG QheGITJb+EXnEJQrKZFAyP5CBTbEGwRvJ5ntrEhxBYcFk+SomaC6LoqZZyIB1WPdXiS19kSyC e4uDkHpKkeU9IEmV7w8plozuNeEc2JJ5oot+2q1b+iMJjeOhaPNRbD2Eycv87q1lvxNlLvCnG 5ZA0c1RTJqRyumkWM2RDv9FBzor7GADaQC7ULm/QCp6mXj8whix2dnmnsQPKNahvTn6hTTX9v DoiaCcFCN318hhSumQEDSfiW4hmzgfyAIUhtjQWJrUtKXvTuJT+JlEfJROxS7YAGQyjd5sHqa XSW2lWG1KE1A5w98l64KHtwF8+BtLa8vOoEbX35mP3VK80qgTWimildsDjGxmgKViKlwTUlVE mBv/U5trFFju9yWgfllmGz6XNCKJvhhyIjZu5Ac4axFvuOczrwafHV8SAngmA4JU1pgvsbWm X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 212.227.15.18 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:205172 Archived-At: If I understand the Emacs and Lisp reference manuals correctly, I expect that, when I have a file foo.el containing Lisp code, the following procedures should produce the same results: 1. emacs -Q C-x C-f foo.el RET M-x eval-buffer RET 2. emacs -Q M-x load-file RET foo.el RET 3. emacs -Q -l foo.el But I have code where the result of doing 1 or 2 differs from the result of doing 3. This is the sexp attached to this posting: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-07/msg00154.html As I noted there, when I evaluate the code in a running Emacs session, i.e. as in 1 or 2, I see frame-widening; but when I load the code by doing 3, there is no frame-widening. Is this difference expected, and if so could someone point me to the relevant documentation or part of the code that makes the difference? Steve Berman