[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: :alnum: broken?
From: |
Clément Pit-Claudel |
Subject: |
Re: :alnum: broken? |
Date: |
Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:23:15 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 |
On 2020-03-02 12:03, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> Most of the warnings don't claim that the code is likely wrong, but
>>> their aim is rather to make your code more reliable and future-proof.
>> That makes me cringe. If I use flycheck, I want my files to be 100%
>> warning-free.
>
> That's indeed what we're aiming for, which is why we provide
> `with-suppressed-warnings`.
>
>> What should I do with the line
>> (require 'request)
>> then, when it gives the error (not even warning!):
>> "Cannot open load file: No such file or directory, request (emacs-lisp)"?
>
> That's "unrelated": it's an error, not a warning. In general it
> indicates either an error in your code or an error in the way the
> compiler is called, or an error in the compiler. In this case it seems
> to be a problem linked to flycheck.
Indeed, it's a problem in the way the compiler is called.
As I said, by default, the compiler is called in a clean environment (without
loading your local packages), except when compiling your configuration files.
We could change that default, of course, but it's not a mistake or an oversight
that it currently behaves the way it does.
- Re: :alnum: broken?, (continued)
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Joost Kremers, 2020/03/02
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Štěpán Němec, 2020/03/02
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Joost Kremers, 2020/03/02
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2020/03/02
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Stefan Monnier, 2020/03/02
- Re: :alnum: broken?,
Clément Pit-Claudel <=