From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B75DD431E64 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:59:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YbkZisojZHJy for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from guru.guru-group.fi (guru.guru-group.fi [46.183.73.34]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D027C431FAE for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from guru.guru-group.fi (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by guru.guru-group.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2EB100086; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:59:10 +0300 (EEST) From: Tomi Ollila To: David Bremner , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] emacs/notmuch.el: remove instruction to (require 'notmuch) in ~/.emacs In-Reply-To: <87k3onny7n.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> References: <1364752324-25966-1-git-send-email-tomi.ollila@iki.fi> <87k3onny7n.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.15.2+50~g43fdda5 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.2.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Face: HhBM'cA~ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:59:16 -0000 On Sun, Mar 31 2013, David Bremner wrote: > Tomi Ollila writes: > >> The (require 'notmuch) is unnecessary to be added to ~/.emacs for >> M-x notmuch or emacs -f notmuch to start it. >> >> If (require 'notmuch) is added to ~/.emacs it is loaded to every >> instance of emacs although it may not be used in majority of >> those instances (but if needed M-x notmuch will load it). > > Hi Tomi; > > Isn't an autoload needed if there is no require? Oh yes, you're right... A big thinko! Marked the patch 'obsolete'. I'll play with the autoload version... > d Thanks, Tomi