Re: [External] : (bounds-of-thing-at-point 'number) ⇒ nil

[Emanuel Berg]

Drew Adams wrote:

> This is what such a file says. Do you think users shouldn't
> be told this?
>
> ;;; Commentary:
> ;;
> ;;  Extensions to library `ffap.el'.
> ;;
> ;;  To use this library, add this to your initialization file.
> ;;
> ;;      (require 'ffap-) ; Load this library.
> ;;
> ;;  You should explicitly load *only* `ffap-.el', not also
> ;;  `ffap.el' (this will automatically load `ffap.el').

In general I think if they have to be told that, one hasn't
written good enough code.

If A and B don't rely on each other, obviously the order does
not matter.

If B relies on A, then whenever B is loaded it will just
`require' A so again the order won't matter, or rather, the
correct order is not an issue with A, and implicit with B.

>> Or they are not redefining each other's stuff, are they?
>
> They are.  And at specific points.

Then you ask for trouble. And not just for this reason.

But then yes, if B relies on A and B redefines stuff in A, if
one intends to use those redefined methods while still
referring to them with A's names, then one cannot load A after
loading B ...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal