Re: Compilation problem

[Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>]

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> writes:
>
>> Bastien writes:
>>> Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> writes:
>>>> That would be commit 830a0781a6 by Jambunathan, then.  Autoloads really
>>>> don't work that way, so could this please be reverted?
>>>
>>> Done.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> By way of explanation: autoload knows about a handful of "special"
>> constructs.  If you put an autoload cookie on any other sexp, it will be
>> copied verbatim into the autoload file.  This comes in handy sometimes,
>> but the sexp may not make any sense in that context…
>
> Yes.  On top of that, I think these functions do not need to be
> autoloaded anyway.  

Please ask for clarification and politely indicate that a change may
have to be reverted.  It will be promptly followed up.  Please don't
reach a conclusion.

Let me see!  

Can someone explain to me the reason why I might have added those in
first place?  Instead of the commit being wrong, is it possible that
changes were incomplete.  Do you have a solution for what that autoload
was trying to solve.

I am OK with the revert, btw.

There is a popular saying in Tamil which goes like "One who has sown the
seeds, will water the plants."  I have been watering the plants, you
know, whether I like it or not.

ps: I am not interested in a discussion.  
--