From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/78360 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: bizarre byte-compile issue, possibly due to EIEIO Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:44:00 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <874o6c4jyn.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87hbahww99.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8762qxo4l3.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87lizs9w5e.fsf@randomsample.de> <87sjtzznil.fsf@randomsample.de> <8762qub9q5.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87tyeeyqrx.fsf@randomsample.de> <87oc4k66at.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87lizomz5s.fsf@randomsample.de> <8739lw60sk.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87aag4mtx2.fsf@randomsample.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1302029072 9826 80.91.229.12 (5 Apr 2011 18:44:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:44:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 05 20:44:24 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q7BEl-0000tX-0Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:44:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34004 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q7BEk-0008E1-EC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:44:22 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43081 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q7BEd-0008CT-GE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:44:16 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q7BEc-0000ky-9f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:44:15 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:40131) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q7BEb-0000ke-W2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:44:14 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q7BEa-0000np-8C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:44:12 +0200 Original-Received: from 38.98.147.130 ([38.98.147.130]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:44:12 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by 38.98.147.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:44:12 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 27 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.98.147.130 X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110016 (No Gnus v0.16) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:+JcwuAyGB5z+wssFJPcfepO2yIY= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:138190 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:78360 Archived-At: On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:31:37 +0200 David Engster wrote: DE> Ted Zlatanov writes: >> On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:38:23 +0200 David Engster wrote: >> DE> I saw that you now set every slot value in the :after method. This isn't DE> necessary; :initform is absolutely save to use for symbols. The only DE> thing that changed in EIEIO is for the case where :initform is a DE> function which has to be evaluated, which is only working correctly in DE> newer versions. >> >> I thought it was more consistent to set all the slot values in one >> place. It is more verbose though... I'm 50-50 on it, do you see any >> issues with the method other than being more verbose? DE> I just wanted to make clear that aside from function evaluations there's DE> no issue with using :initform. I think :initform is better for DE> documentation purposes (it will be shown as "default" in DE> describe-function, although that seems to be currently broken in DE> Emacs24), and it's also better in case you want to allow users to DE> customize objects using eieio-customize. Otherwise, it's more a matter DE> of style. I think constructors should be used to create somewhat DE> "dynamical" objects. OK, I've put the initforms back. Thanks for the help! Ted