Re: build error

2002-01-15 Thread Ronan Waide
On January 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > Not sure what it does on XEmacs. > > kai Seems to do this on all that I have access to, but damned if I'm making large-scale code changes right now! I've rearranged (I think) enough of the compiler placation that it shouldn't trip up anyone. Cheers, W

Re: build error

2002-01-15 Thread Alex Schroeder
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Großjohann) writes: > | ELISP> (defvar xyzzy) > | xyzzy > | ELISP> (boundp 'xyzzy) > | nil Heh, learn a new thing every day. :) Alex. -- http://www.emacswiki.org/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/list

Re: build error

2002-01-15 Thread Adrian Aichner
> "Kai" == Kai Großjohann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Kai> Alex Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> This is exactly the kind of thing which will screw other code in the >> long run. That other package might test (boundp 'foo) and we used >> defvar foo to silence the comp

Re: build error

2002-01-15 Thread Kai Großjohann
Alex Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is exactly the kind of thing which will screw other code in the > long run. That other package might test (boundp 'foo) and we used > defvar foo to silence the compiler... It might work (and many people > do this), but we'll need to really make

Re: build error

2002-01-14 Thread Alex Schroeder
Ronan Waide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On January 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> >> I am not sure, but it seems to me that autoloads are more desireable, >> 'cause then we defer the possible need/availability check to runtime. > > Yep, except the compiler warnings I was attempting to hush up

Re: build error

2002-01-13 Thread Ronan Waide
On January 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > I am not sure, but it seems to me that autoloads are more desireable, > 'cause then we defer the possible need/availability check to runtime. Yep, except the compiler warnings I was attempting to hush up are for variables, not functions/macros, and auto

Re: build error

2002-01-12 Thread Robert Fenk
On , January 12, 2002 at 10:11:38, Jochen Küpper wrote: [...] > I am not sure, but it seems to me that autoloads are more desireable, > 'cause then we defer the possible need/availability check to runtime. But you would not get meaningful compile errors and when you use macros it becomes even wor

Re: build error

2002-01-12 Thread Jochen Küpper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:15:22 + Ronan Waide wrote: Ronan> Note that you must have VM sources to compile BBDB. A compiled Ronan> VM is insufficient. Mind you, I'm not saying that that's where Ronan> the problem lies! On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:43:49 -

re: build error

2002-01-11 Thread Ronan Waide
At Friday, 11 January 2002, you wrote: > >Is this desirable? Why should I install VM when I never use it, just >to get BBDB with Gnus? Nope, it's overzealous compiler-hushing on my part, precisely the sort of thing I'm cleaning up at the moment. In reality, of course, you shouldn't need the VM s

Re: build error

2002-01-11 Thread Matt Armstrong
Ronan Waide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On January 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> >> With latest cvs sources on Linux, XEmacs-21.4 I get > > Note that you must have VM sources to compile BBDB. A compiled VM is > insufficient. Mind you, I'm not saying that that's where the problem > lies! Is t

Re: build error

2002-01-11 Thread Ronan Waide
On January 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > With latest cvs sources on Linux, XEmacs-21.4 I get Note that you must have VM sources to compile BBDB. A compiled VM is insufficient. Mind you, I'm not saying that that's where the problem lies! Cheers

build error

2002-01-10 Thread Jochen Küpper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 With latest cvs sources on Linux, XEmacs-21.4 I get ,[make gnus bbdb] | cd lisp; make gnus | make[1]: Entering directory `/home/software/emacs/bbdb/lisp' | Compiling bbdb-hooks.el... | Compiling /home/software/emacs/bbdb/lisp/bbdb-hooks.el... | L