Re: Calling (package-initialize) sooner during initialization

[Nic Ferrier <nferrier@ferrier.me.uk>]

bruce.connor.am@gmail.com writes:

>> Nic Ferrier <nferrier@ferrier.me.uk> writes:
>>
>> > My preference would be to add a post-package-init.el thereby not
>> > changing the defined semantics of the current system at all.
>>
>> That would be good for backwards compatibility, but won't solve the
>> problem of people asking why a function in their init.el is undefined
>> when they installed the package providing it.
>
> Precisely. Whichever solution is adopted, it must work out of the box for
> people who do nothing but add (require 'some-package) to their init file.
> The goal here is to find the smallest semantics change that affects the
> fewest people, given that restriction.


I am kind of throwing up my arms in frustration at this.

A way was picked a long time ago. Y'all now want to break that way in
the most breaking way possible instead of being incremental.

Are you sure that this will be least damaging to most people? Why are
you sure?


Nic