Re: Should directory of unvompiled elisp file be added to load-path

2003-08-12 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 03:32:29 -0400, Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hi all, I wondering about load-path bloat and whether it matters. > http://bugs.debian.org/189754 said that when help was listed about a > function of mine, the user couldn't click on the function name to > move po

Re: Should directory of unvompiled elisp file be added to load-path

2003-08-10 Thread Simon Josefsson
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> In theory, you could ship the *.el in a dpkg-dev-el-doc package, but I >> assume it isn't a large file so it would be bloat. >> >> IMHO documentation is important. Only installing *.elc is like >> installing software without info manual or man pag

Re: Should directory of unvompiled elisp file be added to load-path

2003-08-10 Thread Peter S Galbraith
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi all, > > > > I wondering about load-path bloat and whether it matters. > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/189754 said that when help was listed about a > > function of mine, the user couldn't click on

Re: Should directory of unvompiled elisp file be added to load-path

2003-08-10 Thread Simon Josefsson
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all, > > I wondering about load-path bloat and whether it matters. > > http://bugs.debian.org/189754 said that when help was listed about a > function of mine, the user couldn't click on the function name to move > point to the source code. > > Th

Should directory of unvompiled elisp file be added to load-path

2003-08-09 Thread Peter S Galbraith
Hi all, I wondering about load-path bloat and whether it matters. http://bugs.debian.org/189754 said that when help was listed about a function of mine, the user couldn't click on the function name to move point to the source code. That's because I add the compiled lisp directory to to load-path