From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Flycheck reports are never satisfying!? Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:38:41 -0400 Message-ID: References: <86ha0w95vp.fsf@somewhere.org> <86bnr4ya4m.fsf@somewhere.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1409236780 20918 80.91.229.3 (28 Aug 2014 14:39:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:39:40 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 28 16:39:33 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XN0rN-00019C-Dc for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:39:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36995 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XN0rN-0007TA-1i for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:39:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37604) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XN0qx-0007Gr-OF for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:39:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XN0qq-0002ob-8f for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:39:07 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:37130) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XN0qq-0002oS-2S for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:39:00 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XN0qo-0000gN-K4 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:38:58 +0200 Original-Received: from 192-171-36-226.cpe.pppoe.ca ([192.171.36.226]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:38:58 +0200 Original-Received: from monnier by 192-171-36-226.cpe.pppoe.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:38:58 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 35 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 192-171-36-226.cpe.pppoe.ca User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:qZHJnDY2Z4q2sUt5B7D7wqlIxJU= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:99466 Archived-At: > Right. Though I'd think many, many packages still rely on others (and > refer them). The first example that comes to my mind is Org that is > based on Outline. Indeed, packages aren't self-contained, but in most cases, when a package uses another, it just `require's it, and the byte-compiler knows about `require' and hence loads the corresponding file (i.e. runs the `require' itself rather than only compiling it) before proceeding to compile the rest of the file. > Or "horizontal" packages called in many others, such > as Helm or IDO... In my experience, this is much less frequent, and is usually limited to calling an (autoloaded) function. The using-package may need a couple of (defvar FOO) or (if (fboundp ...)) to avoid byte-compiler warnings, but that's quite bearable. For a .emacs, adding all the corresponding (defvar FOO) would be rather annoying and would seem pointless. > In such cases, the packages (which use "externals") will output as many > warnings as well, for references to "undefined variables"? If you take a 20 year old package that hasn't been updated, then the byte-compiler will usually emit many such warnings, yes. > Still, I don't understand why my first example did return an error: > there is an explicit call to a package which clearly is in `load-path', > so why is the package reported as missing/unloadable? You'll have to ask the flycheck author about that one, sadly. Stefan