From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: defvars at compile time Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:01:25 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20403.1141690692@olgas.newt.com> <3861.1142268982@olgas.newt.com> <22907.1142318606@olgas.newt.com> <3669.1142364565@olgas.newt.com> <7035.1142372131@olgas.newt.com> <28215.1142437339@olgas.newt.com> <87fyldk4tx.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <873bhbcjfj.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <87hd5jny5h.fsf@olgas.newt.com> <87lkuugz78.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1143673343 18647 80.91.229.2 (29 Mar 2006 23:02:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:02:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: wohler@newt.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 30 01:02:21 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 1FOjgC-0007xB-Sc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 01:02:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FOjgC-00052y-IY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:02:20 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FOjfL-0004l2-6N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:01:27 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FOjfK-0004kh-MM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:01:26 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FOjfK-0004kc-Ig for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:01:26 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FOjhN-0003fb-AC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:03:33 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1FOjfJ-0007YW-GW; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:01:25 -0500 Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-reply-to: <87lkuugz78.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> (message from Stefan Monnier on Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:20:43 -0500) 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:52209 Archived-At: I'd strongly oppose it. I could OTOH accept a policy that Emacs packages should not output any warning when compiled with the Emacs version that they come with. We are more or less aiming for that, with the help of with-no-warnings (which I added for this purpose), and we have removed nearly all of the warnings that we used to have. However, there are a few warnings that are rather hard to remove. And a few files use obsolete constructs for backward compatibility. As mentioned, for your original problem, the byte-compiler was fixed so it doesn't generate a warning for this code any more. For that particular problem, it is *the* clean way to fix the warning. If you want to eliminate the warning without allowing yourself this clean fix (e.g. by insisting dogmatically that all warnings must go, even when compiling with some older byte-compiler), you'll end up with uglier and less maintainable code. I agree with you.