* Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

  > However, Stefan wrote:

  >     The advantage over a macro is that the elisp code will work regardless of
  >     whether this optimization is implemented (it only affects byte-compiler
  >     warnings anyway), so it's trivially backward&forward compatible.

  > This is a good argument for _using_ featurep rather than the macros.

  > That doesn't mean we can't also install the macros.  But maybe you
  > will agree it is better to use featurep.

Yes, I agree.  I'm even going to add a similar optimisation to SXEmacs
and XEmacs.  However, there are situations where this optimisation won't
work, here's an example...

  (if (and (featurep 'simple) (featurep 'xemacs)) a b)

warns about free variables for both `a' and `b'.  So I think having the
macros as well as the optimisation is a good idea.  Can you please add
them, Richard? (with the updated names of course)

Thanks very much.

-- 
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
|       SXEmacs - The only _______ you'll ever need.       |
|         Fill in the blank, yes, it's THAT good!          |
|------------------------------------<steve@sxemacs.org>---|