When I load a java file in my emacs (app-editors/emacs-24.1), I get a second buffer labeled *Compile-Log* printing these two lines: Warning: (lambda (url) ...) quoted with ' rather than with #' Warning: (lambda (docset) ...) quoted with ' rather than with #' Warning: (lambda (col) ...) quoted with ' rather than with #' There is no indication as to what source file those messages refer to, but judging from the file content, it seems to me that these lines all occur in /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/jde/jde-help.el from my jde package (app-emacs/jde-2.4.1_pre20110622): 460: '(lambda (url) 543: (let* ((cols (mapcar '(lambda (docset) 549: (max-len (apply 'max (mapcar '(lambda (col) I must confess that I have no clue at all as to the semantic implications of these different quotings in emacs lisp. Perhaps it is safe to ignore those warnings, but if so, then it would be nice if they could be suppressed in some way. Otherwise the underlying problems should be fixed.
The different quotes are just shortcuts for the lisp reader: 'foo expands to (quote foo) #'foo expands to (function foo) Generally, functions or lambda expressions should be quoted with the latter and non-functions with the former. However, using the "wrong" quote results only in a performance penalty for byte-compiled code, but will still work fine. (Furthermore, lambda is self-quoting, so the quote could also be omitted altogether in all of your exampled.) I think that it would be best if this was fixed upstream. Could you report it please?
(In reply to comment #1) > Could you report it please? Submitted upstream to jdee-users mailing list: http://tinyurl.com/d7h763s
Thanks.
Fixed commited upstream on 2012-08-14: http://jdee.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jdee?view=revision&revision=257 There also was a later fix along the same lines: http://jdee.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jdee?view=revision&revision=270 Could we get a new preview from current svn? 20110622 appears pretty old by now. Trunk has seen some activity, but nothing radical from what I can tell, so rolling a new prerelease tarball which includes the above would be nice.
(In reply to comment #4) > Could we get a new preview from current svn? 20110622 appears pretty old by > now. Trunk has seen some activity, but nothing radical from what I can tell, > so rolling a new prerelease tarball which includes the above would be nice. "Pretty old" and "some activity, but nothing radical" (indeed, there are only 15 commits since our last snapshot) is a contradiction. ;-) But sure, I can make a new snapshot.
Bumped to version 2.4.1. Please test if there are any regressions (and report back). If not, then this will be the next candidate for stable.
