Re: Emacs 25.0.94: Is require failing to define macros and functions at compile time?

[Davis Herring]

> So maybe the byte-compiler could be made smarter to handle a list of
> requires.  If a library has 10 requires, why should we have to write
> out require 10 times or add the eval-and-compile call?  Maybe there is
> a need for a require-list primitive for such circumstances so that it
> is always available at compilation time.

Any library complicated enough to have N `require's will by necessity 
have so many more lines of code than N that the longhand list of 
(require 'foo) will be negligible.  Doing it the simple(minded), obvious 
way has the advantage that it makes trivial things like grep easier.

Obviously it is a complexity that the meaning of `require' depends on 
whether you're compiling or not; the above is simply a statement about 
practicalities.

Davis

--
This product is sold by volume, not by mass.  If it appears too dense or 
too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during 
shipping.