Re: byte-compiling .emacs

[Barry Margolin]

In article <8764yto02m.fsf@vh213602.truman.edu>,
 Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu> wrote:

> Phillip Lord <p.lord@cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> >>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu> writes:
> >
> >   Joe>    On Sun, Apr 10 2005, Joe Corneli <jcorneli@math.utexas.edu>
> >   Joe>    wrote:
> >
> >   >> But, note, what you should really do is byte compile the .emacs,
> >
> >   Joe>    Why?  Typically this isn't worth the trouble ("Changes is my
> >   Joe>    .emacs are ignored!!!1 What's wrong???ß").
> >
> >
> >   Joe> OK, I guess I was wrong.  I personally always byte compile mine
> >   Joe> b/c otherwise emacs complains that the source file is newer.
> >   Joe> Other people might not have that problem :).  But perhaps I'm
> >   Joe> the one who should change...
> >
> > If you don't byte-compile it at all, then it won't. 
> 
> And of course remove the .elc file.

But if you don't byte-compile it at all, where would that file have come 
from?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***