[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: :alnum: broken?
From: |
Óscar Fuentes |
Subject: |
Re: :alnum: broken? |
Date: |
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 20:34:48 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> Indeed, the byte compiler cannot, which is why issuing a warning is
> appropriate. Experience shows that we do pay attention to warnings
> and try to have our sources compile warning-free.
The less experienced users, which are those who fall the most on the
trap (me raises hand) hardly would benefit from a compiler warning. We
use regexps on interactive *-regexp commands, not on Elisp code that we
later compile. That's package writers.
- Re: :alnum: broken?, (continued)
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Paul Eggert, 2020/02/21
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Mattias Engdegård, 2020/02/23
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Paul Eggert, 2020/02/23
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/02/23
- Re: :alnum: broken?,
Óscar Fuentes <=
- RE: :alnum: broken?, Drew Adams, 2020/02/23
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Richard Stallman, 2020/02/24
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Stefan Monnier, 2020/02/25
- RE: :alnum: broken?, Drew Adams, 2020/02/25
- RE: :alnum: broken?, Drew Adams, 2020/02/25
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Andreas Schwab, 2020/02/25
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2020/02/25
- RE: :alnum: broken?, Drew Adams, 2020/02/25
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Mattias Engdegård, 2020/02/23
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Mattias Engdegård, 2020/02/26