Re: Towards a cleaner build

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Noam Postavsky <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 11:11, Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> +(defmacro with-suppressed-warnings (warnings &rest body)
>> +  "Like `progn', but prevents compiler warnings in the body."
>
> Not quite like progn, since WARNINGS (is that WARNINGS or WARNING, by
> the way?) is not evaluated.
>
>> +  (declare (indent 1))
>
> A debug spec would be a good thing to have.

Yup.

>> +  ;; The implementation for the interpreter is basically trivial.
>> +  `(with-suppressed-warnings-1 ',warnings (progn ,@body)))
>
> A comment here on why we need both a function and macro would be
> useful (or is it possible to have this work with just a macro?)

Let's see...  Oh, right.  `with-no-warnings' is a function, while I
thought it would make sense for `with-suppressed-warnings' to be a macro
since the WARNINGS are supposed to be unevaluated.

But as a macro that expands to (basically) `progn', then the byte
compiler just sees the `progn' and is unable to do anything with the
form.  So I needed to make the macro expand to something the byte
compiler can pick up, which is `with-suppressed-warnings-1'.

I'm completely open to me not understanding how the byte compiler
works...  because I don't, really.  :-)  But I tried using just a macro
first, and I couldn't get the byte compiler to understand it.

>> +(defun with-suppressed-warnings-1 (_ &rest body)
>> +  "Like `progn', but prevents compiler warnings in the body."
>> +  (declare (indent 1))
>
> This should be called internal--with-suppressed-warnings-1, and the
> (declare (indent 1)) thing left out, since nobody should be calling
> this function directly anyway, right?

Yup.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no