[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning.
From: |
Markus Triska |
Subject: |
Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning. |
Date: |
Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:44:25 +0200 |
Chong Yidong <address@hidden> writes:
> If the offending function name is unreliable, maybe we should omit
> it and issue a "value returned from form is not used" warning. What
> do you think?
The function name and its starting position/interactive declaration
are quite reliable, and I find reporting them OK. If by "unreliable"
you mean that any form, even before the defun, could contain the
oversight/mistake of not using the return value, you are right. In my
experience, the innermost surrounding defun is an OK indicator though.
- Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning., (continued)
- Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning., Chong Yidong, 2007/04/06
- Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning., Markus Triska, 2007/04/08
- Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning., Richard Stallman, 2007/04/09
- Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning., Glenn Morris, 2007/04/09
- Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning., Markus Triska, 2007/04/10
- Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning., Glenn Morris, 2007/04/11
- Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning., Chong Yidong, 2007/04/05
- Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning., Alan Mackenzie, 2007/04/04
- Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning., Markus Triska, 2007/04/04
- Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning., Chong Yidong, 2007/04/04
- Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning.,
Markus Triska <=
- Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning., Kim F. Storm, 2007/04/07
- Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning., Alan Mackenzie, 2007/04/08