Re: Adding use-package to ELPA

[Philip Kaludercic]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> True, so this is certainly worth investigating.  Yet this is only part
>> of the problem, as function have a similar pattern, but they cannot
>> reliably be detected in this way.  E.g.
>>
>>   (setup foo (:hook bar))
>>
>> wouldn't be able to infer that bar is a function that exists, just
>> because it is being added to foo-bar-mode.
>
> There should be some reason to believe that `bar` will exist.
> Without more info about where `bar` will come from, I can't begin this
> think about how we can arrange to silence this warning.

I'm not sure if we had discussed this before, but couldn't the
initialisation file receive a different treatment by the byte-compiler,
than other files?

>>>> I just tried something like this, but it doesn't seem to work.
>>> I'm glad to see that I'm still able to write incorrect code.
>> Eh, my bad, I had used (macroexp-compiling-p) that apparently didn't do
>> the right job.
>
> Hmm... it *should* work.
> Feel free to send me further info personally so we can fix the problem.

Never mind this, the issue was that I overwrote
`macroexpand-all-environment', breaking macroexp-compiling-p.  With this
issue fixed, these warnings are fixed.

-- 
        Philip Kaludercic