Re: `thunk-let'?

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

>> >> A second question is: Do we really want to have the library have no
>> >> autoloads?
>> > I see no reason not to autoload these.
>> Well, it's pretty easy for those few Elisp file which use it to
>> (require 'thunk), so I'm not sure it's worth the hassle of autoloading.
> What's the "hassle"?

With libraries of functions like thunk.el, the hassles have to do with
the fact that almost all functions need to be autoloaded, that
compilation can generate invalid code if the autoloads were not yet in
place (so macros failed to be macro-expanded), the cost of the autoloads
themselves, ...

These are minor, so if/when thunk.el is used by a large portion of Elisp
packages, these issues aren't significant, but given that it's currently
used by ... only 2 packages so far AFAICT (el-search and stream),
I really don't see any justification for autoloading its functions: the
cost is low but the benefit is even lower.


        Stefan