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 10:48:51 -0500 Message-ID: References: <86msssble8.fsf@gnu.org> <86bk9448ai.fsf@gnu.org> <864jew40m3.fsf@gnu.org> <8634ug3zy4.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="27166"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 29 16:49:32 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 1rUTt5-0006k4-SP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:49:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rUTsd-00045x-DD; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:49:03 -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 1rUTsW-0003wr-Hu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:48:57 -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 1rUTsU-0005i6-Tk; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:48:56 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C1546100115; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:48:52 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1706543331; bh=4XbSS0fQ+RYVof7LfRKIOyuJQEEeQtZ+VB+RTzkF8fE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=FZXwIg5AUkzHUWFqnaqB97BDBrXJ5Rd7+HUeaYkj+SpFJGN82k8bvb/13tjwp3vaa SyBR7wpJoYV1b0lZsqOGLJL9oa7yNxDbKkX7Rpc8rlgpcls4e9kpWUgXQTgIUEiUWW eCbKv3NBTUaKzNom4q6jk6xr485t390Rlb+9yGayB7FZ1rjUnST289MF/VrzyhkDgz 447YuMKI9LFo+5Clnx5hnAXnQRjD5qCKC5jvAEfxcScjlCVUFIiogQbarNj0q45yEs CCaYjdnt9S6H4sYxLvqJN3vQWgJpwkdBTfDGjDwHhmCfvNbarUlda4M4k2hO9KgqA7 H1Vnun9i8gWTg== Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DA26410004C; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:48:51 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.206.68]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8D24120CA0; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:48:51 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <8634ug3zy4.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:46:11 +0200") 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:315595 Archived-At: > Is that a serious risk? In what situations could that happen? AFAIK, I gave two examples (one of each, as it turns out). Stefan