[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: cc-vars.el

From: Miles Bader
Subject: Re: cc-vars.el
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:29:39 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:58:54AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> This way we could even add an "ignore pragmas" flag for
> people who like to get all the warnings.

[we can do this regardless]

> As for whether or not pragmas will ever be made unnecessary, my opinion
> is that it seems highly unlikely that we'll ever get the byte-compiler
> to understand all the cases where a function call is safe.

No one ever said we could; clearly _that's_ hard.  My question is whether we
we need `explicit pragmas' as opposed to `implied pragmas' (as illustrated).
If not, then we can just document `if you don't want warnings, use one of
these simple code patterns in this case'.

I know that in my own usage of fboundp checks, at least, is pretty limited
to a small set of common pattersn like the ones I listed.  So are there some
other uses that don't easily fit?  What are they?  

It's not that I hate explicit pragmas with a passion or anything; if someone
can get something past rms, I guess that's fine with me; but no one's
presented much evidence in this thread that they're actually needed, and it'd
be nice to see what things they _are_ needed for -- and anyway, we need that
to design the pragmas anyway...  Did I miss something?

P.S.  All information contained in the above letter is false,
      for reasons of military security.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]