Re: What happened to (defun x)?

[David Kastrup]

martin rudalics <address@hidden> writes:

>> I might have missed the discussion: pre-22 we had considered having
>> (defun nxml-define-char-name-set)
>> be a byte-compiler silencer in the same manner as
>> (defvar preview-version)
>> is a byte-compiler silencer.  The obvious advantage over
>> "declare-function" is that one does not need to remember another idiom
>> and name.
>>
>> Is there a particular advantage for a separate declare-function that I
>> just am not able to see?
>
> It's a question of strong vs weak type-checking.  The advantage of
> strong type-checking is to catch errors sooner - in the special case
> because a particular file fails to define a declared function.  Its
> disadvantage is that you can no more move a defun to another file
> without finding and changing all files that have a declaration for it.

Couldn't an autoload declaration be made to achieve the same effect?  It
specifies function and file, too.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum