From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Distinguishing `consp` and `functionp` Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:00:08 -0500 Message-ID: References: <86msssble8.fsf@gnu.org> <86bk9448ai.fsf@gnu.org> <864jew40m3.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="31470"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 29 21:00:59 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rUXoQ-0007ym-TY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:00:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rUXnl-0007yO-P8; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:00:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rUXnk-0007yG-Bp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:00:16 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rUXni-0001oU-KE; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:00:16 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1F71444248C; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:00:11 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1706558409; bh=+/J9W+WpAoi4EdEQTpAApfjG9Wvn7Xdlll1+1igaMZo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=o+UnhSzNETosBUnaqig3a1oyuxI8L5qtylE7+PJFWdpEieuxJsVHv1qm56shfEL0+ uDWkaumRuGVu5OddHFQsdf4hxq+1yzCxhazf7mL3747VGpBWVbXchNJKk5lDbyiAWo QF7PWzk7fZc5LSVyR+5A9WhCEIOiW9TQtFV4bs8DS9GugJhYf0HOO3xix2tSckDTiu g/s49s4isnub4eHznMx5O8pw9JQl6m55TiXEJNeI+WXimnQPV+g1n5JGtUQhkKpDle Ljakw2SfTY3PhDE3xkSqXyrWJs/lzYW9xi7VUshkS8arFlSwuRp4U7rajpGCf9A6+/ VF4EsIug0BHTQ== Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D4648442484; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:00:09 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from alfajor (modemcable211.19-21-96.mc.videotron.ca [96.21.19.211]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB1F0120429; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:00:09 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vora=22's?= message of "Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:34:49 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:315606 Archived-At: >> While it's in the vicinity, this is not directly related to my patch. > I know, your patch doesn't address this. But if I understand > correctly it makes at least functionp return nil for the second one. > Or at least makes way for it. The patch I sent doesn't change `functionp`, but indeed makes way for such a change (and changing `functionp` is the driving force behind it). > And that's a plus in my book. :-) > Alright. I wouldn't be surprised if I wasn't passing lists as lambdas > around in that extension. I used to do that, and saw many fall prety > to this, when their lisps allow it. The result is harder to debug code > and harder to instrument. I suspect all long-time Lispers have committed such sins at some point. I'm to blame for the godawful `vc-exec-after` example I sent earlier today. Stefan