[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should we just start dumping cl-lib?
From: |
Artur Malabarba |
Subject: |
Re: Should we just start dumping cl-lib? |
Date: |
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:23:48 +0100 |
> Up until now, the rules for pre-loading package X were that either
> (a) some preloaded package requires X, or (b) X will be auto-loaded at
> the beginning of every session by some very frequent operation, like
> visiting the first file or creating a window or a frame.
>
> Since winner is itself an optional package that not everyone uses
> (e.g., I don't), this case doesn't seem to qualify, IMO.
This might still be an instance of (b), given how many packages require cl-lib. It would be useful if someone grepped together a list of all such packages so we could figure how often it'll just be loaded at startup anyway.
- Should we just start dumping cl-lib?, Daniel Colascione, 2015/10/08
- Re: Should we just start dumping cl-lib?, John Wiegley, 2015/10/08
- Re: Should we just start dumping cl-lib?, Daniel Colascione, 2015/10/08
- Re: Should we just start dumping cl-lib?, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/08
- Re: Should we just start dumping cl-lib?,
Artur Malabarba <=
- Re: Should we just start dumping cl-lib?, Andreas Schwab, 2015/10/08
- Re: Should we just start dumping cl-lib?, Artur Malabarba, 2015/10/08
- Re: Should we just start dumping cl-lib?, Rasmus, 2015/10/08
- Re: Should we just start dumping cl-lib?, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/08
- Re: Should we just start dumping cl-lib?, Oleh Krehel, 2015/10/08
- Re: Should we just start dumping cl-lib?, Mark Oteiza, 2015/10/08