Re: Question for bytecompiler gurus `require' and bytecompilation
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org:
SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> ;;; bar.el --- do something interesting
> ...
> (require 'foo)
> ...
> ;;; bar.el ends here
>
>
> What difference (if any) does it make if foo.el (assuming foo.elc
> hasn't been bytecompiled yet) or foo.elc is loaded?
It should make zero difference (except for totally weird things),
It's the "totally weird things" that I'm asking about.
as far as I know. What prompted you to ask that question?
Why does it matter?
I'm working on building XEmacs package Lisp. Did you read the message
I posted earlier in the day about this?
If loading .els and .elcs via `require' in bytecompilation are
identical, then I can dispense with the order of bytecompilation
requirement. I've done some testing of this in InfoDock, but it
hasn't been particularly strenuous and hasn't reached a comfortable
level of testing for me.
NEWSFLASH:
For all the people asking for `make install' for XEmacs lisp packages,
I have a working make install target that I'm in the middle of
committing to CVS.