[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled
From: |
Juanma Barranquero |
Subject: |
Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled |
Date: |
Thu, 1 Feb 2007 21:07:03 +0100 |
On 2/1/07, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:
I think we should *strongly* recommend not to compile the .emacs file.
Perhaps. But Emacs supports having .emacs compiled anyway, so the
docstring for `user-init-file' should be accurate.
It's a dumb thing to do, unless you're a masochist anyway.
Why? I have a medium-sized .emacs (~1800 lines) and it loads faster
when compiled (or at least that's the feeling I get).
/L/e/k/t/u
- Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled, (continued)
- Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled, Stefan Monnier, 2007/02/01
- Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/02/01
- Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled, Stefan Monnier, 2007/02/02
- Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/02/02
- Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2007/02/02
- Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/02/02
- Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2007/02/02
- Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/02/02
- Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled, Stefan Monnier, 2007/02/02
- Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/02/02
Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled,
Juanma Barranquero <=
Re: user-init-file source vs. compiled, Eli Zaretskii, 2007/02/01