Re: use-package :after ??

[David Masterson]

David Masterson <dsmasterson@gmail.com> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> From: David Masterson <dsmasterson@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
>>> Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 23:54:06 -0700
>>> 
>>> > In any case, if there's something unclear here, the problem might be
>>> > with the description of :demand, not with :after -- the node "Forcing
>>> > loading" says :demand is overridden by :defer, but says nothing about
>>> > :after.
>>> 
>>> Possibly, but the above (made up) example was an attempt to determine if
>>> :after might effect when the loads occur due to a side effect. Perhaps
>>> this side effect might be important in certain cases.
>>> 
>>> Oh, that Info node says :demand is overridden by :defer, but docstring
>>> for use-package-always-defer says assume :defer unless :demand is used.
>>
>> Are we still talking about :after?  My questions were meant to figure
>> out whether :after's documentation needs some improvements.
>>
>> If everything is clear with :after, and we are talking about :demand
>> and :defer, let's talk about those two.  The text you quote is about
>> use-package-always-defer, not about :defer, so how is that a
>> contradiction to whether :defer overrides :demand?
>
> Question: why would anyone include both :defer and :demand in one
> use-package?  Syntactically, it's appropriate to answer the question of
> which takes precedence.  Semantically, though, most users wouldn't do
> that.
>
> My question goes to the effect of :after in connecting a tree of
> packages that may have been setup with some :demand and some :defer.
> This can occur by direct usage of :demand and :defer *or* by setting
> use-package-always-defer and overriding it with :demand in some
> packages.  Example:
>
> (use-package a :defer t :after b)
> (use-package b :demand t :after c)
> (use-package c :defer t)
>
> Does b force the loading of a and/or c because of :after and the mixed
> :demand/:defer? Or is b forced to defer?
>
> The potential (lack of?) side-effects here should be mentioned as it
> might effect on :config for a, b, or c.

Minor addition:

If a, b, and c were all ':defer t' and a had ':bind ("C-." . b-mode)'
and I later hit that key, that would load c, then b, then a -- right?

-- 
David Masterson