From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] unsafep: Add support for (funcall) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:18:51 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1488299647 16461 195.159.176.226 (28 Feb 2017 16:34:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:34:07 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 28 17:34:03 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cikis-0003U5-77 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:33:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35326 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cikiy-0002ba-5o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:34:04 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48803) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cikUW-0007fp-0v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:19:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cikUS-0003tc-3d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:19:08 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=40699 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cikUR-0003tJ-T3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:19:04 -0500 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cikUI-0001F1-2U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:18:54 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 21 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:vYsMYiwDpZgcMqU89E5dgYR/TnU= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:212651 Archived-At: >> Hmm... I don't quite get it: >> >> (funcall ' ...) >> >> is better written as >> >> ( ...) >> >> so why/when do you see such code? Could we rewrite it before unsafep >> gets to look at it. > Indeed, byte-compile-funcall rewrites such forms. I've just added this > to remove a potential false positive from unsafep, as it's not only > the byte compiler and optimizer that use it (for instance, ses.el uses > it to warn the user about "unsafe" formulae). But unsafep must call something like macroexpand-all or something like that, so we could (should?) arrange for that to do the rewrite. Stefan