Re: bizarre byte-compile issue, possibly due to EIEIO

[David Engster <deng@randomsample.de>]

Ted Zlatanov writes:
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:38:23 +0200 David Engster <deng@randomsample.de> 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?

I just wanted to make clear that aside from function evaluations there's
no issue with using :initform. I think :initform is better for
documentation purposes (it will be shown as "default" in
describe-function, although that seems to be currently broken in
Emacs24), and it's also better in case you want to allow users to
customize objects using eieio-customize. Otherwise, it's more a matter
of style. I think constructors should be used to create somewhat
"dynamical" objects.

-David