Re: Emacs 25.0.94: Is require failing to define macros and functions at compile time?

[Robert Weiner <rsw@gnu.org>]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Herring, Davis <herring@lanl.gov> wrote:
> If all the libraries fit on one line, yes.  If there are so few, why bother with mapc anyway?

It reads better to me, just as (+ 2 3 4 5 6) reads better to me than
(2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6).  My brain sees and processes one operator and
then handles the operands.  I guess I just see things a bit
differently than many others (I find CamelCase distressingly hard to
read yet people write it everyday; I think user interfaces are fun to
program and should be both highly usable and powerful).

> I'm not making any claim that these are "crushing rhetorical blows"; merely pointing out that it's (probably) not worth making the world
> more complicated for the sake of curing so mild a problem as this.

I agree.  Now that I know the significance of top-level placement for
require and load during compilation, I can work with it and do
whatever needs to be done.

Bob