Any reasons against having `fboundp-and-funcall' (equivalent to `bound-and-true-p')?

Any reasons against having `fboundp-and-funcall' (equivalent to `bound-and-true-p')?

[Jens Schmidt]

I was delighted when I recently came across `bound-and-true-p' in 
standard Emacs.  But what about `fboundp-and-funcall'?  Like this:

(defmacro fboundp-and-funcall (function &rest arguments)
   `(let ((function ,function))
      (and (fboundp function)
           (funcall function ,@arguments))))

;; arguments not eval'ed in case of failure
(fboundp-and-funcall #'foo (setq baz 'bar))
nil
(boundp 'baz)
nil

(fboundp-and-funcall #'identity 'foo)
foo

WDYT?

RE: [External] : Any reasons against having `fboundp-and-funcall' (equivalent to `bound-and-true-p')?

[Drew Adams]

> WDYT?

I think "Why?".

The trivial expansion is just as clear (nay, clearer), and nearly as succinct.

(and (fboundp function)
     (funcall function ,@arguments))))
___

Just one opinion.

(Of course, I feel the same about `bound-and-true-p', which has the additional disadvantage that its name doesn't proclaim that it returns the variable's symbol.)