Re: bug in syncase

[Carl R. Witty]

Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

>     Carl> The interactive development process would be different,
>     Carl> though; for a complete clone of Emacs, including the
>     Carl> development process, you would want to have an eval that
>     Carl> does no memoization and some sort of separate compilation
>     Carl> phase.
> 
> I don't quite understand.  By `interactive development process', do
> you mean what a user does with `C-x C-e', or something more specific
> to the core Emacs developers?

I meant `C-x C-e' (although I would have said `M-C-x').

> If the former, I don't see how you reach your conclusion.  What if you
> redefine a macro that was in use by a byte-compiled function?  It
> seems to me that what you need to handle this scenario is a
> recompilation protocol.  How does a non-memoizing eval and separate
> compilation help?

Usually when I'm developing an Emacs Lisp package that's simple enough
to fit in a single file, I will load the whole thing in interpreted
mode (typically by loading the file and using M-x
eval-current-buffer).  At this point, I know that no macros I defined
in this file are used by a byte-compiled function, so I can safely
redefine macros.  (Of course, things would be different if the package
were sufficiently performance-critical that parts needed to be
byte-compiled even during development.)

Carl Witty