Hi Bastien, Bastien wrote: > "Sebastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> writes: >> Bastien wrote: >>> "Sebastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> writes: >>>> 2012-04-05 Sebastien Vauban <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> >>>> >>>> * org-table.el (org-table-iterate-buffer-tables): Autoload >>>> function. >>> >>> Why do you need this function to be autoloaded? >> >> To be able to use it in batch mode without having to require explicitly >> `org-table'. > > The problem is there are quite a lot of commands (interactive functions) > that can be used in batch mode. Why adding autoload to this and not to > another one? > > I don't want to open the door for one-by-one requests of this kind... so > unless this is a more pressing need for an autoload cookie, I'll let you > (require 'org-table) in your script. > > Does that make sense?
I'd be more in favor of trying to get autoload cookies for all the functions which could need it, hence accepting such one-by-one patches -- which have no border effects of any sort. For example, you accepted the autoload cookie on org-version, a couple of weeks ago. But, OK, there is certainly not right or wrong position, so I respect yours. Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban
