[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: use-package :after ??
From: |
David Masterson |
Subject: |
Re: use-package :after ?? |
Date: |
Sun, 14 May 2023 23:03:19 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> From: David Masterson <dsmasterson@gmail.com>
>> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
>> Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 23:54:06 -0700
>>
>> > In any case, if there's something unclear here, the problem might be
>> > with the description of :demand, not with :after -- the node "Forcing
>> > loading" says :demand is overridden by :defer, but says nothing about
>> > :after.
>>
>> Possibly, but the above (made up) example was an attempt to determine if
>> :after might effect when the loads occur due to a side effect. Perhaps
>> this side effect might be important in certain cases.
>>
>> Oh, that Info node says :demand is overridden by :defer, but docstring
>> for use-package-always-defer says assume :defer unless :demand is used.
>
> Are we still talking about :after? My questions were meant to figure
> out whether :after's documentation needs some improvements.
>
> If everything is clear with :after, and we are talking about :demand
> and :defer, let's talk about those two. The text you quote is about
> use-package-always-defer, not about :defer, so how is that a
> contradiction to whether :defer overrides :demand?
Question: why would anyone include both :defer and :demand in one
use-package? Syntactically, it's appropriate to answer the question of
which takes precedence. Semantically, though, most users wouldn't do
that.
My question goes to the effect of :after in connecting a tree of
packages that may have been setup with some :demand and some :defer.
This can occur by direct usage of :demand and :defer *or* by setting
use-package-always-defer and overriding it with :demand in some
packages. Example:
(use-package a :defer t :after b)
(use-package b :demand t :after c)
(use-package c :defer t)
Does b force the loading of a and/or c because of :after and the mixed
:demand/:defer? Or is b forced to defer?
The potential (lack of?) side-effects here should be mentioned as it
might effect on :config for a, b, or c.
--
David Masterson
- Re: use-package :after ??, (continued)
- Re: use-package :after ??, David Masterson, 2023/05/10
- Re: use-package :after ??, David Masterson, 2023/05/10
- Re: use-package :after ??, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/05/11
- Re: use-package :after ??, David Masterson, 2023/05/11
- Re: use-package :after ??, Ruijie Yu, 2023/05/11
- Re: use-package :after ??, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/05/12
- Re: use-package :after ??, Emanuel Berg, 2023/05/13
- Re: use-package :after ??, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/05/12
- Re: use-package :after ??, David Masterson, 2023/05/12
- Re: use-package :after ??, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/05/12
- Re: use-package :after ??,
David Masterson <=
- Re: use-package :after ??, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/05/15
- Re: use-package :after ??, David Masterson, 2023/05/15
- Re: use-package :after ??, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/05/16
- Message not available
- Re: use-package :after ??, David Masterson, 2023/05/15
- Re: use-package :after ??, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/05/15
- Re: use-package :after ??, David Masterson, 2023/05/15
- Re: use-package :after ??, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/05/16
- Re: use-package :after ??, David Masterson, 2023/05/16
- Re: use-package :after ??, David Masterson, 2023/05/16
- Re: use-package :after ??, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/05/17