From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: safe-get Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:09:39 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1114071105 28825 80.91.229.2 (21 Apr 2005 08:11:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:11:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 21 10:11:43 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DOWmE-0003vW-Fy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:11:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DOWqu-0006Ej-FW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:16:00 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DOWp7-0005g1-3d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:14:09 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DOWp4-0005fg-ON for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:14:08 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DOWp4-0005bE-6q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:14:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [212.88.64.25] (helo=mail-relay.sonofon.dk) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DOWnc-0004Ld-HH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:12:36 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 72582 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2005 08:09:46 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO kfs-l.imdomain.dk.cua.dk) (213.83.150.2) by 0 with SMTP; 21 Apr 2005 08:09:46 -0000 Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:42:16 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:36223 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:36223 Richard Stallman writes: > Is there a reason not to make ordinary `get' safe? Not really, except a) it will not catch errors in the symbol plist. b) it is slightly slower > That would be > simpler for Lisp programmers than introducing safe-get. > The code would be simpler, the manual would be simpler, even > etc/NEWS would be simpler. I will revert my changes, and just make get safe... But then, why don't we make plist-get safe and get rid of safe-plist-get, too ? IIRC, safe-plist-get is new in 22.1, so I don't see any big problems doing that... -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk