Re: Byte compiler and eval-when-compile

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> Actually, it just recovered the smartness I added many years ago and
>> which got broken years ago as well.
> Just to make sure I understand this right: the byte-compiler will now
> bark if you're using functions (instead of just macros and defsubsts)
> from eval-when-compile'd required packages?

Yes, at least that's the intention: IIRC the implementation is pretty
approximate, so it may very well miss some such functions and complain
about unjustified ones.

>> If you both do the (eval-when-compile (require 'eldoc)) and the
>> `require', the byte-compiler could be smarter indeed: when it sees the
>> inner `require' call, it could check load-history and mark all functions
>> defined therein as being fine for the current scope.
> Well, that would be more or less a legalization of the little hack I did
> so far.

Your hack so far was not and isn't illegal.  It's simply not understood
by the byte-compiler, currently.

>> A simpler solution might be to provide a new (funcall-require PACKAGE
>> FUNCTION &rest ARGS), so you'd do
>> (funcall-require 'eldoc #'eldoc-function-argstring '("foo" "bar"))
>> but the compiler could still be taught to check that
>> eldoc-function-argstring indeed exists in eldoc and accepts being called
>> with a single argument.
> That's pretty much a combination of declare-function and require, isn't
> it?

It's a combination of require, declare-function, and funcall, so I think
it does save typing.


        Stefan