From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Recursive Fload and eval-after-load forms. (See bug #43116.) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 14:54:54 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20200831184526.GB4176@ACM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8042"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Nonax , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 31 20:56:26 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kCoyf-0001wp-2w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 20:56:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39736 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kCoye-0002Ui-2V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 14:56:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43494) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kCoxJ-0000ap-TW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 14:55:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:33255) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kCoxH-0000bF-Nq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 14:55:01 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D8AC4809AC; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 14:54:56 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6114E80853; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 14:54:55 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1598900095; bh=5dh2G6xXTHMJopg6WbMDcT8vzpZN8pugnRau2ICst3w=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=cDGtEv0cRvGXV2SCJdKp1j4b3qT9nSDlFEDRv71+UvdyMkJTTvYIk18MbAh3z7+cl qCZvJObYHS6neuckSr1I4gFD4rAj9z2FJGCPLQDwOr0uXqJVSmz7BAhBlPpQbKW4AR CDvqI1FIllJG9UzKqpqoHnEGfAij+vkjncIvj0CYLc2Sj+f3iyPdPd0W4OzaGF6Nyf QnOk4pFsnOytLW+2dPoT3nxXXqlmtBonn4Yv3IPNBBmoV/zSiVgFH0dwWNU53pL4yT fJOuEQ6qwJ1trwzKIVZG5qgbLMrTMDcJr0FghGefluModsWeIuaOVDedqT2wtxFGbt D4+HGnNBOcT/Q== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [45.72.232.131]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 240A81201B3; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 14:54:55 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20200831184526.GB4176@ACM> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Mon, 31 Aug 2020 18:45:26 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/08/31 14:54:57 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:254453 Archived-At: > The cause of the double evaluation is a custom-menu-create form in > fortran.el, which causes a recursive evaluation of (load "fortran"). That sounds like a misfeature we should address. > What do people think of the following proposal: that the eval-after-load > forms should be evaluated only after the outermost load has completed? > This would be a simple amendment to the function Fload. I think it would only hide the problem and would make the specification of `eval-after-load` needlessly more complex. Recursive loading of a file should be rare and should always be considered as a bug/misfeature in itself, so I don't think we should take extra steps to try and better support it. Stefan