Bastien <b...@altern.org> writes: > Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> writes: > >> Bastien writes: >>> Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> writes: >>>> That would be commit 830a0781a6 by Jambunathan, then. Autoloads really >>>> don't work that way, so could this please be reverted? >>> >>> Done. >> >> Thank you. >> >> By way of explanation: autoload knows about a handful of "special" >> constructs. If you put an autoload cookie on any other sexp, it will be >> copied verbatim into the autoload file. This comes in handy sometimes, >> but the sexp may not make any sense in that context… > > Yes. On top of that, I think these functions do not need to be > autoloaded anyway.
Please ask for clarification and politely indicate that a change may have to be reverted. It will be promptly followed up. Please don't reach a conclusion. Let me see! Can someone explain to me the reason why I might have added those in first place? Instead of the commit being wrong, is it possible that changes were incomplete. Do you have a solution for what that autoload was trying to solve. I am OK with the revert, btw. There is a popular saying in Tamil which goes like "One who has sown the seeds, will water the plants." I have been watering the plants, you know, whether I like it or not. ps: I am not interested in a discussion. --
