SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes:
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.
Now that I think about it, I can't think of any weirdity to provoke
bad behaviour. Originally, I had in mind something like:
foo.el:
(defvar global-var (lambda () ... code ...))
bar.el:
...
(funcal global-var)
...
and such, but now it occurred to me that the code will be evaluated at
run-time, by which time foo.el will be compiled. If, on the other
hand, you force the value of global-var to be open-coded, then the
compiler will go ahead and compile it.
> as far as I know. What prompted you to ask that question?
Why does it matter?
I wanted to know what kind of oddities you might encounter.
If loading .els and .elcs via `require' in bytecompilation are
identical, then I can dispense with the order of bytecompilation
requirement.
I think it might work. Unless someone points out something obvious
that you and I are missing, of course.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever.