On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 01:44:22PM +0100, Arthur Miller wrote:
> <tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:
> 
> >         • When the code is byte-compiled, FUNCTION-OBJECT is compiled
> >           into a byte-code function object (*note Byte Compilation::).
> >
> >         • When lexical binding is enabled, FUNCTION-OBJECT is converted
> >           into a closure.  *Note Closures::.
> >
> >      When FUNCTION-OBJECT is a symbol and the code is byte compiled, the
> >      byte-compiler will warn if that function is not defined or might
> >      not be known at run time.
> 
> And we this Perl-like overloading of an operator where it has different
> meanings in different contexts which makes Perl such an ugly language to
> read once the code is written :-).

Hey, but I ♥ Perl :)

[...]

> I like that idea from that book about early Lisp days about simplifying
> the language. Feels like CL has gone away from that idea long time ago,
> and ELisp is going CL route.

Yes, but early Lisps were Lisp-2's (or rather Lisp-n's for some n>=2).

And oh, BTW, Perl picked up that part, but made that explicit via
the symbol "sigils".

> Anyway, I messed up, when I sent my working code this weekend; I did
> from an old laptop with old Emacs, I don't even understand why it worked
> there or if I maybe send wrong version. Here is one patch that is
> "almost" working: but for some reasons does not save permissions. I have
> just brewed a fresh cup of coffee, so I'll see if I can see what is
> wrong :).

;-)

Cheers
 - t