Re: bytecomp warning for CL functions

[Stefan Monnier]

> That is a good idea--Eli, would you please install it?
> 
> I think it would be even better if these warnings were issued by default
> whenever the file does not include cl.  Does anyone see a reason not
> to do that?

Could someone explain to me what this really does ?
I had installed a hack that tries to notice when you call a function
that will not be available at runtime (because the library
was loaded via (eval-when-compile (require 'LIB)) as is done for CL).

It had a bug that I just fixed so it should be a bit more useful now.

In what way does Dave's code differ ?
I notice for example that it warns about code that uses `values' but
since the CVS has replaced the defvalias with a defsubst for `values',
a call to `values' gets replaced during byte-compilation so that
it works just fine even without using CL at runtime.

Admittedly, my hack is just that: a hack.  And it's not reliable.
But it is more genric and covers more cases.  So my question is:
which cases does Dave's code cover that mine doesn't.

What I'm trying to figue out is if there is a way to get the benefits
of Dave's code without having to hard-code any particular list
of functions.


        Stefan