From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sebastien Vauban" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add autoload cookie for function org-table-iterate-buffer-tables Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 12:09:59 +0200 Message-ID: <80ehs1dvd4.fsf@somewhere.org> References: <80pqbm45nl.fsf@somewhere.org> <87wr5tjojy.fsf@gnu.org> <80ty0x6yog.fsf@somewhere.org> <87wr5tgrd0.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: 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-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Hi Bastien, Bastien wrote: > "Sebastien Vauban" writes: >> Bastien wrote: >>> "Sebastien Vauban" writes: >>>> 2012-04-05 Sebastien Vauban >>>> >>>> * org-table.el (org-table-iterate-buffer-tables): Autoload >>>> function. >>> >>> Why do you need this function to be autoloaded? >> >> To be able to use it in batch mode without having to require explicitly >> `org-table'. > > The problem is there are quite a lot of commands (interactive functions) > that can be used in batch mode. Why adding autoload to this and not to > another one? > > I don't want to open the door for one-by-one requests of this kind... so > unless this is a more pressing need for an autoload cookie, I'll let you > (require 'org-table) in your script. > > Does that make sense? I'd be more in favor of trying to get autoload cookies for all the functions which could need it, hence accepting such one-by-one patches -- which have no border effects of any sort. For example, you accepted the autoload cookie on org-version, a couple of weeks ago. But, OK, there is certainly not right or wrong position, so I respect yours. Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban