From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: hard coded autoload file Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:36:19 +0200 Message-ID: <87k3np7q8s.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59651) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UVcMk-0000yR-KW for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 02:42:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UVcMj-0000GP-MH for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 02:42:42 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]:61188) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UVcMj-0000GD-G3 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 02:42:41 -0400 Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id e11so1860982wgh.25 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 23:42:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Ivan Kanis's message of "Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:53:27 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ivan Kanis Cc: org mode Hi Ivan, Ivan Kanis writes: > It seems each file has the name of the autoload file hard coded at the > end. > > For example at the end org-element.el: > > ;; Local variables: > ;; generated-autoload-file: "org-loaddefs.el" > ;; End: > > It sucks for me as I generate autoload with a different name. I made a > workaround so it's fine. Why do you generate autoloads with a different name? > I think it would be better engineered no to have this stuff > repeated at the end of each file. We follow the Calc exemple here: .el files for which autoloads need to be in Emacs loaddefs.el don't have this local variable set, and files for which autoloads are put into org-loaddefs.el do have this variable. This is for reducing the number of Org autoloads in loaddefs.el as it speeds up Emacs startup time. > It would be better that it's specified somewhere in the autoconf. > If I work on this would the patch be accepted? I can imagine some ad hoc function putting the autoloads were they belong, but this would be ad hoc. I guess you'll have first to explain why the current setup is problematic. -- Bastien