--- Begin Message ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
[ forwarded to xemacs-beta courtesy Karl ]
> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 17:48:04 +0100 (CET)
> From: Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Mailcrypt - EMACS package maintainers please read this message.
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 18 Jan 1998, Rob Browning wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > > 4) This one isn't directly related to your proposal, anyway, since we're
> > > going to update policy: could we add a note to emacs add-on package
> > > maintainers telling them to use (autoload ) forms rather than (load ) ones
> > > under /etc/<emacs>/site-start.d/? (Rationale: you don't want to
> > > automatically load something you may not use, especially in a site wide
> > > file.) [Currently debview has (load "deb-view") in
> > > /etc/emacs/site-start.d/50debview.el; should I file a bug report?]
> >
> > That sounds like a good idea. Since I seem to be making the "big
> > emacs policy document" I'll stick it in as a recommendation.
>
> BTW, should we keep the tiny section `4.7 Emacs lisp programs' in the
> Policy Manual or is this already contained in our new document:
>
> - ---cut-here----
> 4.7 Emacs lisp programs
>
> Generally, if a package includes an elisp helper file, it probably doesn't
> need to be byte-compiled. If the package is written primarily in emacs, it
> is probably complex enough that speed is an issue and should be byte
> compiled.
> - ---cut-here----
I think this is a very wrong thing to recommend. Elisp packages
should normally run byte-compiled, and this is not only about speed of
compiled-vs.-uncompiled code. The code that makes heavy use of macros
(e.g. using `cl' extensions) will literally *drag* when uncompiled.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? Who knows? Who cares?
--- End Message ---
