From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Romain Francoise Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: do-after-load-evaluation Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:12:08 +0200 Organization: orebokech dot com Message-ID: <87k678xe93.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> References: <20060622202234.818245.FMU5392@piglet.prv.splode.com> <87sllwxpit.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <85lkroi94c.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1151064769 15561 80.91.229.2 (23 Jun 2006 12:12:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:12:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Noah Friedman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 23 14:12:45 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtkWQ-0004PS-0S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:12:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtkWP-0004cB-7j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:12:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FtkWD-0004bq-JH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:12:13 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FtkWB-0004bJ-Kn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:12:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FtkWB-0004bG-HE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:12:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [82.67.41.165] (helo=yeast.orebokech.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FtkhL-0004kI-Rv; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:23:44 -0400 Original-Received: from pacem.orebokech.com (pacem.orebokech.com [192.168.1.3]) by yeast.orebokech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E2F912FC6; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:12:08 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by pacem.orebokech.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3857E523EB; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:12:08 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: David Kastrup X-Face: }9mYu,e_@+e!`Z-P5kVXa3\_b:hdJ"B)ww[&=b<2=awG:GOIM (David Kastrup's message of "Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:12:03 +0200") 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:56116 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > Any reason this is not "\\(\\`\\|/\\)foo\\(\\.elc?\\)?\\(\\.gz\\)?\\'" > instead (should perform better)? The regexp is built from `load-suffixes' in a place where we can't use regexp-opt, so it's a simple mapconcat... I'm not sure if performance is an important factor in this context, anyway. > And is there a reason that .elc? is optional? I don't know about that... it's probably just to make the code do the same thing as it did before the change. -- Romain Francoise | The sea! the sea! the open it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | sea! The blue, the fresh, the | ever free! --Bryan W. Procter