Re: Undo defalias

[Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org>]

>
> There's admittedly the possibility/risk that you hit `C-g` (or some 
> similar error occurred) right at the specific moment when `cl-letf` was 
> executing the second part of the `unwind-protect` (i.e. the one that 
> reset `message` to its previous definition).
>
> That's a known hole in our system.
>

Should we not inhibit-quit around the unwind-form of cl-letf to avoid 
this?  Otherwise the promise of cl-letf ("On exit, either normally or 
because of a `throw' or error, the PLACEs are set back to their original 
values.") is not fulfilled.  (And yes, I know that, even with 
inhibit-quit, it is still possible that a C-g would be processed just 
before we bind inhibit-quit.)