Commit e1ce9f34 authored by Philipp Stephani's avatar Philipp Stephani

Don't recommend using 'module-load' for loading modules.

'module-load' most likely doesn't do what users expect.  Users should
use 'load' and its wrappers, which do the right thing.

* doc/lispref/loading.texi (Dynamic Modules): Document
disadvantages of 'module-load' and recommend normal 'load' and
its wrappers instead.

* doc/lispref/internals.texi (Module Functions): Recommend
'load' over 'module-load'.
parent 03f962a4
......@@ -1423,8 +1423,8 @@ following simple Lisp wrapper:
@end lisp
The Lisp package which goes with your module could then load the
module using the @code{module-load} primitive (@pxref{Dynamic
Modules}) when the package is loaded into Emacs.
module using the @code{load} primitive (@pxref{Dynamic Modules}) when
the package is loaded into Emacs.
@node Module Values
@subsection Conversion Between Lisp and Module Values
......
......@@ -1217,6 +1217,12 @@ during the initialization. If the initialization succeeds,
@code{module-load} returns @code{t}. Note that @var{file} must
already have the proper file-name extension, as this function doesn't
try looking for files with known extensions, unlike @code{load}.
Unlike @code{load}, @code{module-load} doesn't record the module in
@code{load-history}, doesn't print any messages, and doesn't protect
against recursive loads. Most users should therefore use @code{load},
@code{load-file}, @code{load-library}, or @code{require} instead of
@code{module-load}.
@end defun
Loadable modules in Emacs are enabled by using the
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment