Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> writes: > Bastien writes: >> Yep, typo. But the 'mustsuffix trick is to force loading ".el" (and >> not ".elc" files, right? My question is: when is it necessary? > > The 'mustsuffix argument prevents consideration of the filename without > the extensions listed in load-suffixes. In other words, when you are > trying to load feature 'x, a file named just "x" does not satisfy the > requirement as it otherwise would. On the other hand, it does not > prevent using "x.el.gz" instead of "x.el" as 'nosuffix does.
(load "org-loaddefs.el" t t t) will *not* load gzipped version of org-loaddefs.el. >> I'm trying to consider real use-cases, with a sense of "real" close to >> "not so improbable". I don't see why Org should take care of users >> who are pervert enough to gzip their org-loaddefs.el... but maybe I >> lack imagination, as usual :) > > This is a real use case. Installation with compression is a standard > feature of Emacs and just currently not supported by the build system, > mainly due to "little" problems like the above. Emacs' current > installer itself compresses the source files only when there's a > byte-compiled file around, so any recent Emacs would automatically have > a file "org-loaddefs.el" in load-path, although some packagers have > their own ideas about this. You should generally expect that the > installed files, whether sources or byte-compiled files could have been > compressed. Please point at one distribution that actually distributes gzipped autoloads files like loaddefs.el. > Now if someone decides to compress the lisp folder for their own org > installation Then we will tell him not to. Can we stop *imagining* people shouting themselves in the foot for free? I don't have time to build an hospital for them. -- Bastien
