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: Mon, 15 May 2023 15:27:53 -0700
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> >> From: David Masterson <dsmasterson@gmail.com>
>> >> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
>> >> Date: Sun, 14 May 2023 23:16:52 -0700
>> >> 
>> >> 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?
>> >
>> > No, based on my reading of the docs I think it will cause an error
>> > (because b cannot be loaded without c being loaded).
>> 
>> D**n typo -- it should've been 'a-mode'.
>
> I don't think it matters.  AFAIU, :bind doesn't load the package
> except via explicit autoloads (i.e. not via use-package machinery).

I think we're saying the same thing.  The bound key will call 'a-mode
which will trigger the autoload setup by use-package because a was
deferred. 

>> My question was that the :bind key would force the load of the
>> bottom of the tree and the :afters would then force loading of the
>> parent packages.
>
> :after cannot force loading the parents, AFAIU.  I don't understand
> why you think it should (or could).

The :after(s) say there is a relationship between a, b, and c --
presumably, in the user's setup, a won't be used without b (same w/
b->c).  Therefore, if the :after on a doesn't kick the loading of the
deferred b, then it must be assumed that a does (require 'b) (and
similar b->c) in which case is there a need for :after? Each package
would handle it internally via 'require'.

I'm assuming there is a reason for :after in the case where a, b, and c
are not directly related (ie. no internal requires), but are related
because of the user's environment.  For instance, a (made up) example
might be when the user brings in (say) a specialized spell checker then
he's going to work with Org (ie. (use-package checker :after org)).  In
this case, the spell checker would hook itself into Org -- Org would not
know anything else about it.

Does that make sense?

-- 
David Masterson