spam.el and missing functions

spam.el and missing functions

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

Hi,

When compiling spam.el, Emacs complaints about missing functions:

Emacs 20.7:
  ** The following functions are not known to be defined:
    bbdb-search, bbdb-records, locate-file, display-message-or-buffer

Emacs 21.2:
  ** The following functions are not known to be defined:
    bbdb-search, bbdb-records, locate-file

Emacs 21.3.50:
spam.el:544:11:Warning: the following functions are not known to be defined:
    bbdb-search, bbdb-records

XEmacs 21.4.10:
  ** The following functions are not known to be defined:
    bbdb-search, bbdb-records, display-message-or-buffer

Here, `bbdb-search' is a macro which is defined in bbdb-com.el.
So, spam.el should require the feature `bbdb-com' in the top
level.  It is severe since there may be people who don't have
BBDB.  The other things are as looking above.
-- 
Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org>

Re: spam.el and missing functions

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 08 Oct 2002, yamaoka@jpl.org wrote:
> When compiling spam.el, Emacs complaints about missing functions:
> 
> Emacs 20.7:
>   ** The following functions are not known to be defined:
>     bbdb-search, bbdb-records, locate-file,
>     display-message-or-buffer
> 
> Emacs 21.2:
>   ** The following functions are not known to be defined:
>     bbdb-search, bbdb-records, locate-file
> 
> Emacs 21.3.50: spam.el:544:11:Warning: the following functions are
> not known to be defined: bbdb-search, bbdb-records
> 
> XEmacs 21.4.10:
>   ** The following functions are not known to be defined:
>     bbdb-search, bbdb-records, display-message-or-buffer

(summary: BBDB problems fixed, I need help with locate-file and
display-message-or-buffer)

locate-file is used by this code:

;; FIXME!  I do not know if Gnus has a compatibility function for
;; `executable-find'.  Here is a possible mantra for portability,
;; until Lars decides how we really should do it.
(unless (fboundp 'executable-find)
  (if (fboundp 'locate-file)
      (defun executable-find (command)
	(locate-file command exec-path))
    (autoload 'executable-find "executable")))
;; End of portability mantra for `executable-find'.

(defvar spam-bogofilter-path (executable-find "bogofilter")
  "File path of the Bogofilter executable program.
Force this variable to nil if you want to inhibit the functionality.")

I would appreciate suggestions, I don't know the right way to fix this.

I fixed the BBDB errors with:

;; BBDB autoloads
(autoload 'bbdb-search "bbdb-com")
(autoload 'bbdb-records "bbdb-com")

The display-message-or-buffer function is used by this function:

(defun spam-bogofilter-score ()
  "Use `bogofilter -v' on the current article.
This yields the 15 most discriminant words for this article and the
spamicity coefficient of each, and the overall article spamicity."
  (interactive)
  (when (and spam-use-bogofilter spam-bogofilter-path)
    (spam-bogofilter-articles nil "-v" (list (gnus-summary-article-number)))
    (save-excursion
      (set-buffer spam-output-buffer-name)
      (unless (= (point-min) (point-max))
	(display-message-or-buffer (current-buffer)
				   spam-output-buffer-name)))))

Any suggestions?  display-message-or-buffer is in the simple.el
package, but I don't know what to use instead of it.

Thanks
Ted

Re: spam.el and missing functions

[Jesper Harder]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> locate-file is used by this code:
>
> ;; FIXME!  I do not know if Gnus has a compatibility function for
> ;; `executable-find'.

I don't think I understand why a compatibility function is needed.
Doesn't both Emacs and XEmacs have 'executable.el'?

> I would appreciate suggestions, I don't know the right way to fix
> this.

How about autoloading it:

(autoload 'executable-find "executable")

Re: spam.el and missing functions

[François Pinard]

[Jesper Harder]

>> ;; FIXME!  I do not know if Gnus has a compatibility function for
>> ;; `executable-find'.
>
> I don't think I understand why a compatibility function is needed.
> Doesn't both Emacs and XEmacs have 'executable.el'?

I do not know about now, but when I wrote it, this surely was because I
stumbled on some [X]Emacs which did not have the function.  I'm not enough
of an academician for creating solutions and problems all at once...  :-).

Maybe some older version of [X]Emacs?  I sometimes have to run across
between many sites in my regular work.  By all means, get rid of the
portability mantra if it is known to be obsolete. :-)

-- 
François Pinard   http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard

Re: spam.el and missing functions

[Jesper Harder]

pinard@iro.umontreal.ca (François Pinard) writes:

> [Jesper Harder]
>
>> I don't think I understand why a compatibility function is needed.
>> Doesn't both Emacs and XEmacs have 'executable.el'?
>
> I do not know about now, but when I wrote it, this surely was because
> I stumbled on some [X]Emacs which did not have the function.  I'm not
> enough of an academician for creating solutions and problems all at
> once...  :-).

I guess it would have to be XEmacs since Emacs doesn't have
`locate-file'.  

Anyway, `executable-find' is autoloaded in several other Gnus files:
binhex.el, uudecode.el, mm-decode.el et al.  So, it probably doesn't
break anything (that's not already broken) to use the same method in
spam.el.

Re: spam.el and missing functions

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Wed, 09 Oct 2002, harder@myrealbox.com wrote:
> How about autoloading it:
> 
> (autoload 'executable-find "executable")

I added that fix, and removed the locate-file reference in spam.el.

Ted

Re: spam.el and missing functions

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 976 bytes --]

>>>>> In <m3y9999elt.fsf@heechee.beld.net>
>>>>>	Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote:

>> Emacs 20.7:
>>   ** The following functions are not known to be defined:
>>     bbdb-search, bbdb-records, locate-file,
>>     display-message-or-buffer

[...]

> I fixed the BBDB errors with:

> ;; BBDB autoloads
> (autoload 'bbdb-search "bbdb-com")

Unfortunately, it doesn't fix.  The byte-compiler still generates
the byte-code which is equivalent to `(funcall 'bbdb-search args)'
in the function `spam-check-bbdb', and then:

(with-temp-buffer
  (insert "From: who\n")
  (condition-case code
      (spam-check-bbdb)
    (error code)))
 => (invalid-function (macro . #[(records &optional name company net...

Since the macro definition of `bbdb-search' should be expanded
before byte-compiling the function `spam-check-bbdb',
bbdb-com.elc should be loaded at the compile time rather than
autoloaded.  The following code will help only BBDB users who
have already installed BBDB.


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/x-patch, Size: 385 bytes --]

--- spam.el~	2002-10-08 21:52:36 +0000
+++ spam.el	2002-10-09 01:00:36 +0000
@@ -40,9 +40,14 @@
 (require 'message)
 
 ;; BBDB autoloads
-(autoload 'bbdb-search "bbdb-com")
 (autoload 'bbdb-records "bbdb-com")
 
+;; Attempt to load BBDB macros
+(eval-when-compile
+  (condition-case nil
+      (require 'bbdb-com)
+    (error)))
+
 ;;; Main parameters.
 
 (defvar spam-use-blacklist t

Re: spam.el and missing functions

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Wed, 09 Oct 2002, yamaoka@jpl.org wrote:
>> I fixed the BBDB errors with:
> 
>> ;; BBDB autoloads
>> (autoload 'bbdb-search "bbdb-com")
> 
> Unfortunately, it doesn't fix.  The byte-compiler still generates
> the byte-code which is equivalent to `(funcall 'bbdb-search args)'
> in the function `spam-check-bbdb'

> Since the macro definition of `bbdb-search' should be expanded
> before byte-compiling the function `spam-check-bbdb',
> bbdb-com.elc should be loaded at the compile time rather than
> autoloaded.  The following code will help only BBDB users who
> have already installed BBDB.

OK, I added your patch (if I understand correctly, it still autoloads
the bbdb-records function, but the bbdb-search macro needs special
treatment), but what do we do if the user does not have BBDB
installed?  

As far as I'm concerned, spam-check-bbdb can just be an empty function
without a BBDB installation, or it can raise an error.

Ted

Re: spam.el and missing functions

[Alex Schroeder]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> OK, I added your patch (if I understand correctly, it still autoloads
> the bbdb-records function, but the bbdb-search macro needs special
> treatment), but what do we do if the user does not have BBDB
> installed?  
>
> As far as I'm concerned, spam-check-bbdb can just be an empty function
> without a BBDB installation, or it can raise an error.

Then we wrap it in a condition-case, and redefine spam-check-bbdb as
an alias to 'ignore in the error handler.

Alex.

Re: spam.el and missing functions

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 258 bytes --]

Hi,

>>>>> In <m3y9999elt.fsf@heechee.beld.net>
>>>>>	Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote:

> (summary: BBDB problems fixed, I need help with locate-file and
> display-message-or-buffer)

Here's a replacement for display-message-or-buffer.  How about it?


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/emacs-lisp, Size: 439 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 1 bytes --]



[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #4: Type: text/x-patch, Size: 509 bytes --]

--- spam.el~	2002-10-14 21:52:48 +0000
+++ spam.el	2002-10-17 09:22:50 +0000
@@ -469,9 +469,7 @@
     (spam-bogofilter-articles nil "-v" (list (gnus-summary-article-number)))
     (save-excursion
       (set-buffer spam-output-buffer-name)
-      (unless (= (point-min) (point-max))
-	(display-message-or-buffer (current-buffer)
-				   spam-output-buffer-name)))))
+      (spam-display-buffer-contents))))
 
 (defun spam-bogofilter-register-routine ()
   (when (and spam-use-bogofilter spam-bogofilter-path)

Re: spam.el and missing functions

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, yamaoka@jpl.org wrote:
> Here's a replacement for display-message-or-buffer.  How about it?

Patch applied, thank you very much.

Ted

Re: spam.el and missing functions

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

>>>>> In <m3it004jo0.fsf@heechee.beld.net>
>>>>>	Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote:

>> Here's a replacement for display-message-or-buffer.  How about it?

> Patch applied, thank you very much.

Thank you for the adoption.  I reconsidered after that it is not
necessary to make the independent function.  So, I've changed it
again, with the other trivial fixes.

Regards,
-- 
Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org>