Re: pdbtrack [was Re: python.el fixes for Emacs 22]

[Ken Manheimer]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Nick Roberts <address@hidden> wrote:

>  > It uses four undefined functions:
>  >
>  > python-goto-beyond-block, python-nesting-level, python-safe,
>  > python-execute-file
>  >
>  > Can I ask people to check for byte-compiler warnings when they install
>  > things? Almost all are either genuine errors or are trivially
>  > suppressible these days.

none of these functions have anything to do with the pdbtrack changes
that nick made.  they all appear to be preexisting artifacts of an
incomplete adoption of code from python-mode.el.  (if so, the
python.el file commentary ought to acknowledge that.)  i just checked
in some refinements of the pdbtrack provisions without settling these
dangling functions.  i'm about to spend some more time seeing about
settling them.  from a quick glance, though, the changes are not
trivial.

in general, i don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone who
touches a file to settle all preexisting issues.

> I don't know what to do about these: remove references to them or install the
> functions from python-mode.el of which I no longer have a copy, but I'm sure
> Ken will.

i do have a copy, and will look at copying over more code, or
inhibiting the dangling references.  this obviously is delicate
attribution territory, mitigated somewhat by the fact that (1) the
python-mode authors are interested in pursuing a consolidation, and
(2) some code was probably copied, already, if the matches against
routines in python-mode.el is any evidence.

> Let's not forget the bigger picture too.  Byte-compiler warnings on the trunk
> at this stage aren't the end of the world.

i can understand the desire to minimize all incidental warnings, so
new warnings are visible.  still, i think this is a less trivial
situation than was being supposed.
-- 
ken
http://myriadicity.net