Two questions about byte compilation

Two questions about byte compilation

[Michael Shields]

1. The skip-boring patch I've written tries to add to gnus.art:

    (defcustom gnus-article-boring-faces (cons 'gnus-signature-face
                                               gnus-cite-face-list)
        [...]

   This doesn't byte-compile properly, because gnus-cite-face-list is
   undefined.  However, I can't (require 'gnus-cite), because
   gnus-cite.el has (require 'gnus-art) and the byte-compiler loops
   until hitting the recursion limit.

   What is the right way to fix this?


2. Why does dgnushack.el wrap an (ignore-errors) around the call to
   byte-compile-file?  This causes files with errors to silently fail
   to compile; then after "make install" you have a mix of old and new
   files, with no warning.
-- 
Shields.

Re: Two questions about byte compilation

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Michael Shields <shields@msrl.com> writes:

> 1. The skip-boring patch I've written tries to add to gnus.art:
>
>     (defcustom gnus-article-boring-faces (cons 'gnus-signature-face
>                                                gnus-cite-face-list)
>         [...]
>
>    This doesn't byte-compile properly, because gnus-cite-face-list is
>    undefined.  However, I can't (require 'gnus-cite), because
>    gnus-cite.el has (require 'gnus-art) and the byte-compiler loops
>    until hitting the recursion limit.
>
>    What is the right way to fix this?

Put the definition of `gnus-article-boring-faces' (and the functions
that depend on it) in gnus-cite.el.

> 2. Why does dgnushack.el wrap an (ignore-errors) around the call to
>    byte-compile-file?  This causes files with errors to silently fail
>    to compile; then after "make install" you have a mix of old and new
>    files, with no warning.

They don't fail silently, surely.  They issue a warning, usually.

So the effect is basically that of "make -k".

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Two questions about byte compilation

[Michael Shields]

In article <m33cnyyo6k.fsf@quimbies.gnus.org>,
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote:
>>    This doesn't byte-compile properly, because gnus-cite-face-list is
>>    undefined.  However, I can't (require 'gnus-cite), because
>>    gnus-cite.el has (require 'gnus-art) and the byte-compiler loops
>>    until hitting the recursion limit.
>>
>>    What is the right way to fix this?
>
> Put the definition of `gnus-article-boring-faces' (and the functions
> that depend on it) in gnus-cite.el.

Hmmm... that would work, but it seems that then such things as
gnus-treat-hide-citation should also be in gnus-cite.el.  Also,
boring-faces isn't just for citations.

I experimented some more and found that I could say:

    (eval-when-compile
      (unless (boundp 'gnus-cite-face-list)
        (setq gnus-cite-face-list nil)))
    (defcustom gnus-article-boring-faces (cons 'gnus-signature-face
                                               gnus-cite-face-list)
        [...]

Is that ugly or is it a good workaround?

>> 2. Why does dgnushack.el wrap an (ignore-errors) around the call to
>>    byte-compile-file?  This causes files with errors to silently fail
>>    to compile; then after "make install" you have a mix of old and new
>>    files, with no warning.
>
> They don't fail silently, surely.  They issue a warning, usually.

Usually.

> So the effect is basically that of "make -k".

But why is this desirable?  Shouldn't it abort when byte-compilation
fails?
-- 
Shields.

Re: Two questions about byte compilation

[kgreiner]

Michael Shields <shields@msrl.com> writes:

> In article <m33cnyyo6k.fsf@quimbies.gnus.org>,
> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote:
>>>    This doesn't byte-compile properly, because gnus-cite-face-list is
>>>    undefined.  However, I can't (require 'gnus-cite), because
>>>    gnus-cite.el has (require 'gnus-art) and the byte-compiler loops
>>>    until hitting the recursion limit.
>>>
>>>    What is the right way to fix this?
>>
>> Put the definition of `gnus-article-boring-faces' (and the functions
>> that depend on it) in gnus-cite.el.
>
> Hmmm... that would work, but it seems that then such things as
> gnus-treat-hide-citation should also be in gnus-cite.el.  Also,
> boring-faces isn't just for citations.
>
> I experimented some more and found that I could say:
>
>     (eval-when-compile
>       (unless (boundp 'gnus-cite-face-list)
>         (setq gnus-cite-face-list nil)))
>     (defcustom gnus-article-boring-faces (cons 'gnus-signature-face
>                                                gnus-cite-face-list)
>         [...]
>
> Is that ugly or is it a good workaround?

Ugly.  If you have to do this, use a defvar.

(eval-when-compile
  (defvar gnus-cite-face-list))


>
>>> 2. Why does dgnushack.el wrap an (ignore-errors) around the call to
>>>    byte-compile-file?  This causes files with errors to silently fail
>>>    to compile; then after "make install" you have a mix of old and new
>>>    files, with no warning.
>>
>> They don't fail silently, surely.  They issue a warning, usually.
>
> Usually.
>
>> So the effect is basically that of "make -k".
>
> But why is this desirable?  Shouldn't it abort when byte-compilation
> fails?

Actually, byte-compile-file is supposed to return nil when the
compilation fails.  The ignore-errors should be unnecessary but
probably protects against errors in the compiler itself.

If feature X contains a programming error, then every file requiring X
may fail to compile.  With some compilation warnings, it may be very
difficult to identify the error in X when looking at one of the files
requiring X.  To me, it seems safer to compile everything.


Kevin

Re: Two questions about byte compilation

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Michael Shields <shields@msrl.com> writes:

> Hmmm... that would work, but it seems that then such things as
> gnus-treat-hide-citation should also be in gnus-cite.el.  Also,
> boring-faces isn't just for citations.

But it depends strongly on gnus-cite, so it makes sense to put it
there. 

> I experimented some more and found that I could say:
>
>     (eval-when-compile
>       (unless (boundp 'gnus-cite-face-list)
>         (setq gnus-cite-face-list nil)))
>     (defcustom gnus-article-boring-faces (cons 'gnus-signature-face
>                                                gnus-cite-face-list)
>         [...]
>
> Is that ugly or is it a good workaround?

I think that's too ugly.  :-)

> But why is this desirable?  Shouldn't it abort when byte-compilation
> fails?

I like getting all the error messages in one sweep.  

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen