Re: Strange eval-after-load

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:

> I've been trying to get an answer to this question in post after post
> after post, and all replies have been evasive.  Everybody else has
> been writing as though it were perfectly obvious and uncontrovertible
> that eval-after-load is bad.  It's anything but obvious to me.

the fewer axioms, the more obvious the proofs, no?

using `eval-after-load' introduces complexity at the maintenance level
in order to hide that complexity at the user level.  that is, it is a
feature intended for users who may not care much about the consequences
of its use.  maintainers, on the other hand, always care about such
consequences because time spent understanding complex interdependent
behavior is time not spent hacking (or doing other maintenance).

people have a different feel for "complex interdependent behavior" and a
different valuation for it when they recognize it, so a one- or two-link
chain (of loading, of coding, of debugging, of required reasoning, etc)
may not seem excessive to one but may seem extremely tedious to another.
in moments of drunken elitism one might even exclaim "how crass!".

surely having fewer such chains is better, especially when the given
alternative (to DTRT) is to be more precise and more explicit.  that is
the general problem of `eval-after-load', essentially, from a lazy
maintainer's pov: it is overkill.

anyway, that's how i see things.  ymmv.

thi