Re: use-package :after ??

[David Masterson]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: David Masterson <dsmasterson@gmail.com>
>> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
>> Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 15:04:50 -0700
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > In general, when I'm told that :after causes the package FOO to be
>> > loaded after another package, my interpretation is that at the end of
>> > loading that other package Emacs will load package FOO.  If that is
>> > not what you understand, could you take another look at the
>> > description of :after in the use-package manual and tell what is
>> > missing there to convey this meaning?
>> 
>> Basically, I think the sections on :if, :after, and :requires should
>> make clear what will (should?) happen if package loading is deferred
>> (individually or globally). Do these happen when use-package is called
>> or when autoload occurs?  Demand loading should mean they're immediately
>> evaluated.  Deferred and mixed is more complicated.
>
> Sorry, I still don't see the difficulty.  The manual says that using
> :after causes one package to be loaded immediately after the other
> one--how is this unclear?  Please bear with me, because I really don't
> understand what bothers you.  It is crystal clear to me.  So there's
> some misunderstanding here.
>
>> For instance, what happens if A should be after B, but you never define
>> B with use-package?
>
> Isn't it clear?  If B is never loaded, A will _never_ be loaded in
> that case.  It doesn't matter whether B is loaded via use-package or
> by some other means.  How is this NOT clear from the description?
>
>> Or B is demand loaded later?
>
> Later than what?  A will _always_ be loaded as the last step in
> loading B, whenever the latter happens.
>
>> Or make the rule explicit in infodoc that :after does what it does
>> regardless of demand/defer.
>
> So is the difficulty because of :defer and/or :demand?  If so, please
> ask questions that involve those.  Because so far you were asking
> about :after alone, and there I see nothing unclear.

See the other message.

-- 
David Masterson