Re: bizarre byte-compile issue, possibly due to EIEIO

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:31:37 +0200 David Engster <address@hidden> wrote: 

DE> Ted Zlatanov writes:
>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:38:23 +0200 David Engster <address@hidden> wrote: 
>> 
DE> I saw that you now set every slot value in the :after method. This isn't
DE> necessary; :initform is absolutely save to use for symbols. The only
DE> thing that changed in EIEIO is for the case where :initform is a
DE> function which has to be evaluated, which is only working correctly in
DE> newer versions.
>> 
>> I thought it was more consistent to set all the slot values in one
>> place.  It is more verbose though...  I'm 50-50 on it, do you see any
>> issues with the method other than being more verbose?

DE> I just wanted to make clear that aside from function evaluations there's
DE> no issue with using :initform. I think :initform is better for
DE> documentation purposes (it will be shown as "default" in
DE> describe-function, although that seems to be currently broken in
DE> Emacs24), and it's also better in case you want to allow users to
DE> customize objects using eieio-customize. Otherwise, it's more a matter
DE> of style. I think constructors should be used to create somewhat
DE> "dynamical" objects.

OK, I've put the initforms back.  Thanks for the help!

Ted