From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 19 12:01:39 2014 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Feb 2014 17:01:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60476 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WGAWg-0002AG-6M for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:01:38 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51183) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WGAWc-00029x-VP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:01:36 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGAWP-0007aS-Un for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:01:29 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:37453) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGAWP-0007aN-QP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:01:21 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52811) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGAWI-0003kT-Bb for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:01:21 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGAW8-0007WK-40 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:01:14 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:45973) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGAW7-0007W4-Ti for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:01:04 -0500 Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id s1JH12oL009997 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:01:02 GMT Received: from userz7022.oracle.com (userz7022.oracle.com [156.151.31.86]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1JH11ZF024666 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:01:01 GMT Received: from abhmp0010.oracle.com (abhmp0010.oracle.com [141.146.116.16]) by userz7022.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s1JH11lO024630 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:01:01 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:00:59 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 24.3.50; `with-eval-after-load' X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) 1. The NEWS entry is not helpful enough: "This is like the old `eval-after-load', but better behaved." What does that even mean? How so? How is it like it? How is it different? What is "better" about the (unspecified) behavior difference? Why was the macro introduced? The main difference I can see, based on the available doc, is that the macro evaluates the BODY "*each time* LIBRARY is loaded". Is that considered "better behaved"? Why? That important difference (assuming the manual is correct about that) is not even mentioned in the doc string. And it is not stressed in the Elisp manual - you have to read carefully to get it. Other, obvious differences, which I can hardly imagine to constitute "better" behavior and so call for introducing this macro, let alone replacing `eval-after-load' with it, are (a) that it is a macro, so you do not need to quote its arg (and so cannot pass it something to be evaluated) and (b) that it uses an implicit `progn'. What else is different? 2. The doc string is not helpful enough. Compare the doc string of `eval-after-load' with this doc string. Someone actually tried (and succeeded) to describe what `eval-after-load' does. 3. Elisp manual: `eval-after-load' is referenced multiple times, but it is not described/specified. Its description has been removed from the manual. It needs to be reinstated. The Elisp manual says that`eval-after-load' is primarily for users (e.g., in their init files), not for Lisp libraries. But the Emacs manual also does not describe it. This does not help users. The doc for both `eval-after-load' and `with-eval-after-load' is now incomplete and confusing. 4. Posts here and there (e.g., http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-02/msg00270.html) suggest that `eval-after-load' is being replaced by `with-eval-after-load'. All the more reason to document the proposed new at least as well as the old was documented. 5. I can find no proposal or discussion of `with-eval-after-load' in either emacs-devel or the bug list. It seems to have just appeared, followed by a few statements here and there suggesting that it is replacing `eval-after-load'. What happened to proposal > discussion > implementation & doc? What problem is this solution trying to solve? In GNU Emacs 24.3.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32) of 2014-02-11 on ODIEONE Bzr revision: 116410 lekktu@gmail.com-20140211204823-l9l2s6tktfitq266 Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601 Configured using: `configure --prefix=3D/c/Devel/emacs/binary --enable-checking=3Dyes,glyphs 'CFLAGS=3D-O0 -g3' LDFLAGS=3D-Lc:/Devel/emacs/lib CPPFLAGS=3D-Ic:/Devel/emacs/include' From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 19 13:45:56 2014 Received: (at 16810) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Feb 2014 18:45:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60543 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WGC9b-000514-SM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:45:56 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:20490) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WGC9Z-00050q-C6 for 16810@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:45:54 -0500 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id s1JIjkrk022091 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <16810@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:45:47 GMT Received: from aserz7021.oracle.com (aserz7021.oracle.com [141.146.126.230]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s1JIjjsY009877 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <16810@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:45:46 GMT Received: from abhmp0010.oracle.com (abhmp0010.oracle.com [141.146.116.16]) by aserz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s1JIjjfX009865 for <16810@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:45:45 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:45:45 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: 16810@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: RE: bug#16810: 24.3.50; `with-eval-after-load' References: In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 16810 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) Another important difference is of course that for the macro the BODY will be byte-compiled. That too might be worth pointing out. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 19 14:08:25 2014 Received: (at 16810) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Feb 2014 19:08:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60575 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WGCVM-0005dw-R5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:08:25 -0500 Received: from mail-qc0-f180.google.com ([209.85.216.180]:63912) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WGCVK-0005dg-Ek for 16810@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:08:22 -0500 Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id i17so1352799qcy.11 for <16810@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:08:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=iPCnJO2Pf7/bYvpYt0ayfbklz2mR/el8ujp94TZf/4g=; b=ueiBPD6wboZ9C1VK29Nyqt5J9vdLI5/3bLMndfIvgBmd2RI6DZ1/FfNdUptW2Q+TtF pEkoh4shtSTcK0/JocIB6DfoHah1BuctAQkOw4YrQ/sjM5zaQ++JZen4dDUsr66aLFn1 tt85qLYlBglTP+oqgajf+8PQK17GYjkz0rfsw0tsK/qPH0fUScfiPDjHTc5pzdY16Usv XZgIPMGhqZcntRBLQsyplpx0jkM0U4tc79YKd3G5JJyNoD5zAr2yDEtW//XxsZwgZn8Y c2F03DuWrOcqj3IgAGWZmkzUGofovpHPde4ZrNZJpt+AAOIFXDYSS8h4cLKKk7rQIkqt 7ZRg== X-Received: by 10.236.58.200 with SMTP id q48mr34964840yhc.88.1392836896942; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:08:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.170.197.1 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:07:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:07:36 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#16810: 24.3.50; `with-eval-after-load' To: Drew Adams Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 16810 Cc: 16810@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) Some brief comments. > The main difference I can see, based on the available doc, is that > the macro evaluates the BODY "*each time* LIBRARY is loaded". Is > that considered "better behaved"? Why? Docstring for eval-after-load says: If a matching file is loaded again, form will be evaluated again. so how is that different? > Other, obvious differences, which I can hardly imagine to constitute > "better" behavior and so call for introducing this macro, let alone > replacing `eval-after-load' with it, are (a) that it is a macro, so > you do not need to quote its arg To me, that's a big difference which makes the macro much "better". YMMV. > 2. The doc string is not helpful enough. Agreed. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 19 14:31:52 2014 Received: (at 16810) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Feb 2014 19:31:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60626 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WGCs3-0006JQ-4q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:31:51 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:27810) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WGCs1-0006JD-43 for 16810@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:31:49 -0500 Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id s1JJVgOh001561 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 19 Feb 2014 19:31:43 GMT Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1JJVfJL008799 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Feb 2014 19:31:42 GMT Received: from abhmp0010.oracle.com (abhmp0010.oracle.com [141.146.116.16]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s1JJVfOU019776; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 19:31:41 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <8fdb2159-5973-4753-859e-0eece2246199@default> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:31:41 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Juanma Barranquero Subject: RE: bug#16810: 24.3.50; `with-eval-after-load' References: In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 16810 Cc: 16810@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) > Docstring for eval-after-load says: >=20 > If a matching file is loaded again, form will be evaluated again. >=20 > so how is that different? Good catch; it's not different - my bad. [Although it perhaps used to be different (?). The doc string said at one point: "It does nothing if FORM is already on the list for FILE." ("The list" here refers to `after-load-alist'.)] From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu May 11 12:30:43 2017 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 May 2017 16:30:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38982 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d8qzD-0005Er-2t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 12:30:43 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35492) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d8qzB-0005Eb-7L for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 12:30:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8qz2-0005nr-B5 for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 12:30:36 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:55974) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8qz2-0005ni-8I for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 12:30:32 -0400 Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1d8qz1-0003dg-Pe for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 12:30:32 -0400 Subject: control message for bug 26888 To: X-Mailer: mail (GNU Mailutils 2.99.98) Message-Id: From: Glenn Morris Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 12:30:31 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) merge 16810 26888 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 05 07:52:54 2021 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Feb 2021 12:52:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43092 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l80bI-00050z-S8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 07:52:54 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:41074) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l80bH-00050c-34 for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 07:52:39 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Subject:From:To:Message-Id:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=lfsuPz5Z+Z+1Xm9M9cyWAEaU7TPIvKdtDk85qQ7RM7o=; b=Jo/uiNiYHw0cnUgJeIpOHYeIUX fkphrUrQelxG3g42Ff6Sb+2OvZbbdyiXbHtwfuBBP1vdasYrGHtrCoSQyAI1COMcHZp2Ptu3sNguX secwbC0NwC2CQKG3bIG2/PUCDDKCoYqxPCJbLuRleHV8gVYgKoX5q9w8VsYBLrBN/ISY=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l80b9-0002bY-Ez for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 13:52:33 +0100 Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 13:52:30 +0100 Message-Id: <87r1luhe29.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #26888 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: close 26888 quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) close 26888 quit From unknown Tue Jun 17 20:17:30 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 12:24:04 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator