RE: Compilation warnings of ELisp seem wrong and misleading

["Ludwig, Mark" <ludwig.mark@siemens.com>]

"Emanuel Berg" writes:

> As for "should you compile your code?": one of the
> reasons to do that apart from the supposed but seldom
> noticed gains is that you can improve the quality of
> your code and become a better lisper. It is
> automatized feedback. And, because of that, it is even
> more important that the error/warning messages
> are understandable.

In spite of pointing to the wrong source lines, the warnings
were basically correct.

Is there a way to get the warnings without writing a .elc
file?  I ask, because some time in the last few years, this
list convinced me that compiling my init file was a bad
idea.  I've lost track of /why/.  (*Sigh*)  I /think/ it has
to do with the error reporting, or maybe it predates my
addition of the little customization that automatically
byte-compiles a .el file if there's already a corresponding
.elc file, so there's little risk that the .elc gets picked
up when it's older than the source.  /That/ behavior (with
its little /completely/ /useless/ warning that the .el is
newer) drives me crazy!

Thanks,
Mark