[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: `thunk-let'?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: `thunk-let'? |
Date: |
Fri, 24 Nov 2017 11:16:01 +0200 |
> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 03:51:20 -0500
>
> >> A second question is: Do we really want to have the library have no
> >> autoloads?
> > I see no reason not to autoload these.
>
> Well, it's pretty easy for those few Elisp file which use it to
> (require 'thunk), so I'm not sure it's worth the hassle of autoloading.
What's the "hassle"?
- Re: `thunk-let'?, (continued)
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/11/22
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/11/22
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Pip Cet, 2017/11/23
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/11/23
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/11/24
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/11/24
- Re: `thunk-let'?,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/11/24
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/11/27
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/11/27
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/11/27
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/11/30
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/11/24
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/11/30
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/11/30
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/11/23
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Gemini Lasswell, 2017/11/22