[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: :alnum: broken?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: :alnum: broken? |
Date: |
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 20:27:26 +0200 |
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 10:13:16 -0800
> Cc: Stephen Leake <address@hidden>,
> emacs-devel <address@hidden>
>
> The byte-compiler could warn about some of these blunders and if someone
> wants
> to change the byte-compiler to do that, it would be an improvement. However,
> this would necessarily either cry wolf or let blunders through, because the
> byte-compiler cannot reliably determine whether a string will be used as a
> regular expression.
Indeed, the byte compiler cannot, which is why issuing a warning is
appropriate. Experience shows that we do pay attention to warnings
and try to have our sources compile warning-free.
- :alnum: broken?, Stephen Leake, 2020/02/21
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Paul Eggert, 2020/02/21
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Mattias Engdegård, 2020/02/23
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Paul Eggert, 2020/02/23
- Re: :alnum: broken?,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Óscar Fuentes, 2020/02/23
- RE: :alnum: broken?, Drew Adams, 2020/02/23
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Richard Stallman, 2020/02/24
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Stefan Monnier, 2020/02/25
- RE: :alnum: broken?, Drew Adams, 2020/02/25
- RE: :alnum: broken?, Drew Adams, 2020/02/25
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Andreas Schwab, 2020/02/25
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2020/02/25
- RE: :alnum: broken?, Drew Adams, 2020/02/25
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Mattias Engdegård, 2020/02/23