[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Feb 2023 21:04:43 +0200 |
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2023 18:29:06 +0000
>
> > > But you also say "neither does the manual".
> > >
> > > To me, the Emacs manual is (and has long been)
> > > very clear about this. Node `Lisp Libraries'
> > > goes into it, pointing out explicitly which
> > > files (*.el or *.elc) get loaded (priority)
> > > by `load', `load-library', and `load-file'.
> >
> > But none of that says anything about explicitly loading FOO.el.
> >
> > > And that Emacs-manual text points to the more
> > > detailed text in the Elisp manual, node `How
> > > Programs Do Loading'.
> >
> > Which again says nothing about explicitly loading FOO.el.
>
> Sorry, but it's not clear to me what you're
> talking about.
>
> Stefan wrote this:
>
> >> If you want to load "the most efficient
> >> option available", then just don't specify
> >> any extension, and Emacs will load the
> >> `.el`, `.elc`, or `.eln` file according to
> >> what it finds.
>
> To which I suggested that that be pointed out
> explicitly. And I parenthetically added that
> this logic has long existed for *.el and *.elc.
That's not what this discussion is about.
> To which you replied that none of the doc
> strings says anything about it [the logic
> behind that behavior].
I wasn't replying to _that_. I was replying to the main issue being
discussed: that if one specified FOO.elc, Emacs will load FOO.elc and
nothing else. It will NOT try loading FOO.eln or FOO.el.
> You've apparently (now, for the first time?)
> interjected the fact that the doc that talks
> about the logic behind which files get loaded
> in priority doesn't cover explicitly loading
> FOO.el - or at least that the doc strings
> don't mention that.
That's the only thing being discussed here. You are missing the main
point of this discussion, and talking about something else entirely.
> (And the doc makes clear that `M-x load-file
> FOO.el' or (load-file "FOO.el") loads FOO.el.)
No, it doesn't.
- Re: Native compilation by default? (was: Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp), (continued)
- Re: Native compilation by default? (was: Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp), Emanuel Berg, 2023/02/27
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/22
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Madhu, 2023/02/25
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Stefan Monnier, 2023/02/25
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/26
- FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Drew Adams, 2023/02/26
- Re: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/26
- RE: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Drew Adams, 2023/02/26
- Re: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/26
- RE: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Drew Adams, 2023/02/26
- Re: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Emanuel Berg, 2023/02/27
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Emanuel Berg, 2023/02/27
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Emanuel Berg, 2023/02/27
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Madhu, 2023/02/27
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/26
- RE: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Drew Adams, 2023/02/26
- Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Jean Louis, 2023/02/19