[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Package initialization
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: Package initialization |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:53:32 +0900 |
Stefan Monnier writes:
> >> The important aspect is that it should be possible to install a package
> >> without using it, so the autoloads file should only set things up so
> >> that they *can* be used, but not so that they're automatically used
> >> without being explicitly requested.
[...]
> > It also seems to me that there is a certain conflict between what you
> > say and this from the manual:
>
> > These autoload definitions are saved to a file named
> > ‘NAME-autoloads.el’ in the content directory. They are typically used
> > to autoload the principal user commands defined in the package, but
> > they can also perform other tasks, such as adding an element to
> > ‘auto-mode-alist’.
>
> I don't see a conflict there. Opening a file with the particular
> extension counts as an "explicit request".
For a major mode, usually[1], for a minor mode (as slime-mode is),
rarely[2]. IMHO YMMV etc.
Footnotes:
[1] Unfortunately overloaded extensions are hardly uncommon.
[2] Of course, .gz invoking a decompressor is unlikely to bother very
many people. Nevertheless, in XEmacs we decided it should not be
enabled via autoloads. FWIW, of course.
- Re: Package initialization, (continued)
- Re: Package initialization, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/07/20
- Re: Package initialization, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/07/21
- Re: Package initialization, Helmut Eller, 2015/07/21
- Re: Package initialization, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/07/19
- Re: Package initialization, Stefan Monnier, 2015/07/19
- Re: Package initialization, Helmut Eller, 2015/07/20
- Re: Package initialization, Stefan Monnier, 2015/07/20
- Re: Package initialization,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
- Re: Package initialization, David Kastrup, 2015/07/21
- Re: Package initialization, Helmut Eller, 2015/07/21