> For some of them definitely. I'd draw=
the line between pure functions like
> car and eq, where those facilities never make sense and would be
> ineffective anyway as the functions are compiled away or called direct=
ly,
> and impure functions like call-process, where fset is necessary for
> mocking. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest to ban fset on all symbol=
s that
> have a byte-code equivalent, and on constant symbols.
I still very doubt that the potential benefit is worth the added cost
(more specifically, as a maintainer I would strongly oppose such
measure).=C2=A0
Why is then the potential b=
enefit for the value cells worth the added cost, i.e. why not also allow (s=
et t 5)?
=C2=A0
Are you also=
going to try and prevent the user from using all
the other ways he can shoot himself in the foot?
To the extent that=
it's feasible, yes. Emacs Lisp isn't C. If the user wants to shoot=
themselves in the foot, they can write a C module.=C2=A0