Re: trunk r112976: * lisp/subr.el (with-eval-after-load): New

Re: trunk r112976: * lisp/subr.el (with-eval-after-load): New

[Xue Fuqiao]

Stefan Monnier wrote:

>  * doc/lispref/loading.texi (Hooks for Loading): Document with-eval-after-load
>  instead of eval-after-load.  Don't document after-load-alist.

I think loading.texi needs some further changes.  The last paragraph
("Normally, well-designed Lisp programs should not use
`eval-after-load'...") is superfluous.  My reasons:

1. `eval-after-load' isn't documented any more.  This paragraph is
somewhat suprising to readers who did not know this function before;

2. (info "(elisp) Coding Conventions") has already stated that the use
of `eval-after-load' isn't recommended.

--
Best regards, Xue Fuqiao.
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/

Re: trunk r112976: * lisp/subr.el (with-eval-after-load): New

[Stefan Monnier]

> I think loading.texi needs some further changes.  The last paragraph
> ("Normally, well-designed Lisp programs should not use
> `eval-after-load'...") is superfluous.  My reasons:

> 1. `eval-after-load' isn't documented any more.  This paragraph is
> somewhat suprising to readers who did not know this function before;

The wording should be made more general so as to include eval-after-load
and with-eval-after-load (and eval-next-after-load).

> 2. (info "(elisp) Coding Conventions") has already stated that the use
> of `eval-after-load' isn't recommended.

Repetition is not bad,


        Stefan

Re: trunk r112976: * lisp/subr.el (with-eval-after-load): New

[Michael Heerdegen]

Hello,

Xue, I guess you should make a bug report, so that this isn't forgotten.

emacs-dev is a good forum for discussion, however, without making a bug
report, things get stalled most of the time, because it's on nobody's
todo list.


Thanks,

Michael.

> > 1. `eval-after-load' isn't documented any more.  This paragraph is
> > somewhat suprising to readers who did not know this function before;
>
> The wording should be made more general so as to include eval-after-load
> and with-eval-after-load (and eval-next-after-load).
>
> > 2. (info "(elisp) Coding Conventions") has already stated that the use
> > of `eval-after-load' isn't recommended.
>
> Repetition is not bad,
>
>
>         Stefan