2:24 p.m.
Hello
There are two issues I would like to discuss.
- I am using so far successfully org 7.8 under Xemacs 21.5.33
Mule, but could not get org 8.X to work, xemacs complains
about a function called declare-function which GNU emacs
posses and we don't. I have attached the error trace.
- The other issue concerns an add-on to the org pkg called
org-link-minor-mode, which allows to display org-links in a
convenient way. It works nicely in GNU emacs 24 (with
org-8), that is: it works say in fundamental and in LaTeX
mode, but it does not work smoothly in xemacs 21.5.33 with
org-7. It works sort of in fundamental mode but not in
LaTeX mode at all. So I don't know who is here the culprit:
missing functionality of org 8 or something deeper, that is
some features org-link-minor requires but Xemacs does not
posses?
If somebody has any idea I would appreciate this very much.
regards
Uwe Brauer
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
8:11 a.m.
Uwe Brauer writes:
about a function called declare-function which GNU emacs
(defalias 'declare-function 'ignore)
IMHO the need for this function is a symptom of poor programming
practice. If the function being declared is internal, require the
library and be done with it. If it's an entry point it ought to be
autoloaded, and the byte compiler should be able to deal with it.
I can't help with the other part, although Mike seems to have some
ideas.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
1:21 p.m.
> "Stephen" == Stephen J Turnbull
<stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Uwe Brauer writes:
> about a function called declare-function which GNU emacs
(defalias 'declare-function 'ignore)
thanks
I can't help with the other part, although Mike seems to have
some
ideas.
I finally managed to use a never version of org mode namely 8.2.3 as
provided by Michael but the problem persists. I also had an interchange
with the author, who does not use Xemacs of course and he told me that
most likely
"I suspect the problem is something to do with the difference in
semantics between Emacs text properties and XEmacs extents."
The idea is that in a given mayor mode, his minor mode allows some
additional fontifying, by adding keywords and syntaxis. For Xemacs his
package only works in fundamental mode but for any other mayor mode the
fontification is not modified.
Uwe
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:50 p.m.
From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:11:33 +0900
Uwe Brauer writes:
> about a function called declare-function which GNU emacs
(defalias 'declare-function 'ignore)
IMHO the need for this function is a symptom of poor programming
practice. If the function being declared is internal, require the
library and be done with it. If it's an entry point it ought to be
autoloaded, and the byte compiler should be able to deal with it.
There are valid reasons for using this function that I wouldn't
classify as "poor programming". They are documented in the ELisp
manual, in the node "Declaring Functions". The purpose is to avoid
redundant warnings while byte compiling code, where the byte compiler
is not smart enough to understand that the function's definition will
be available at run time.
Of course, if one doesn't care about noise during byte compilation,
using the above defalias is the way to go.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
10:24 a.m.
Eli Zaretskii writes:
There are valid reasons for using this function that I wouldn't
classify as "poor programming".
I'm sure there are, just as there are valid reasons for
`ignore-errors' and the like.
They are documented in the ELisp manual, in the node "Declaring
Functions". The purpose is to avoid redundant warnings while byte
compiling code, where the byte compiler is not smart enough to
understand that the function's definition will be available at run
time.
Most of the instances I've seen, however, would just as well be served
by a require, and better served by refactoring (especially in cases
where the intent was to save a few KB of RAM by requiring only at
need).
Of course, if one doesn't care about noise during byte
compilation,
using the above defalias is the way to go.
Not really. It's just a stopgap until we get around to implementing
`declare-function'. I don't like it, but we don't have much say in
this so we have to follow Emacs usage.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3568
days inactive
3571
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Eli Zaretskii -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Uwe Brauer