Re: Nonsensical byte compiler warning.

[Markus Triska]

Chong Yidong <address@hidden> writes:

> If the offending function name is unreliable, maybe we should omit
> it and issue a "value returned from form is not used" warning.  What
> do you think?

The function name and its starting position/interactive declaration
are quite reliable, and I find reporting them OK. If by "unreliable"
you mean that any form, even before the defun, could contain the
oversight/mistake of not using the return value, you are right. In my
experience, the innermost surrounding defun is an OK indicator though.