From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/78359 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Engster Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: bizarre byte-compile issue, possibly due to EIEIO Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:31:37 +0200 Message-ID: <87aag4mtx2.fsf@randomsample.de> 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1302028365 5307 80.91.229.12 (5 Apr 2011 18:32:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:32:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ted Zlatanov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 05 20:32:39 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 1Q7B3P-0001vm-HW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:32:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51312 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q7B3O-0006sZ-CJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:32:38 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46521 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q7B3J-0006s4-62 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:32:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q7B3H-00053B-78 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:32:33 -0400 Original-Received: from v3-1008.vxen.de ([79.140.41.8]:49674) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q7B3G-0004zM-Sg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:32:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=randomsample.de; s=a; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From; bh=tzmUj05TxoGxh/f40gNWkcdpSj+qpTPsrzKe8qczkn8=; b=HTlUzF4RqAUpdKRAYbzP+Y7huC0lUoygsx6LfaaFJNNe7AejJ0O03JDoJRDfZ9b/706HwRZqhZGgL/zcELuDvoPhCz/2QmRrbHwDGiNxLN5RXEs4lQQv/CgMeMPJxFzL; Original-Received: from dslc-082-083-054-069.pools.arcor-ip.net ([82.83.54.69] helo=spaten) by v3-1008.vxen.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Q7B3C-0008Fz-Un; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:32:27 +0200 In-Reply-To: <8739lw60sk.fsf@lifelogs.com> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Tue, 05 Apr 2011 12:55:07 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110016 (No Gnus v0.16) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Mail-Followup-To: Ted Zlatanov , emacs-devel@gnu.org, ding@gnus.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 79.140.41.8 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:138189 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:78359 Archived-At: 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? 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