Re: byte-compiler warnings about undefined functions can now be silenced

[Glenn Morris]

"Jay Belanger" wrote:

> Is there any reason the filename isn't optional, too?  `check-declare-file'
> wouldn't be able to check anything in that case, of course, but it could
> still keep the byte-compiler quiet.

It's my recollection that rms specifically wanted it to work this way,
but I haven't bothered to check the mailing list archives...