* Robert Widhopf-Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sunday, November 7, 2004 at 00:31:39, Steve Youngs wrote: > [...] >> Well, you GNU/Emacs people can't have all the fun. :-)
> When it comes to fun ... I did not knew that a warning about
> an undefined function can be avoided by defaliasing it to
> ignore. Cool!
Yeah, it can be handy.
> There are two things I wonder about:
> - If those functions/packages become available in XEmacs, do
> we then have to recompile the ELs in order to guarantee
> that everything is working?
After removing the defalias in xtla-build, yeah.
> - Is it possible to avoid a undefined-function warning also
> locally, i.e. a the position of a call.
If you define a function _after_ where you first call that function
you'll get a warning. Move the definition to _before_ where you first
call it and the warning goes away.
This isn't the case for the functions I've defalias'd to ignore
because those functions are _not_ defined in xtla, just called.
> Since by getting no warning anymore I also might miss new
> occurrences of the function which are not guarded against
> XEmacs so far.
I see what you are getting at and perhaps this might be better than
ignoring those functions...
(defmacro tla--funcall-if-exists (function &rest args)
"Call FUNCTION with ARGS as parameters if it exists."
(if (fboundp function)
`(funcall ',function ,@args)))
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
| Te audire no possum. |
| Musa sapientum fixa est in aure. |
|----------------------------------<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>---|
pgpoB9UIbnBlZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
