Re: Distinguishing `consp` and `functionp`

[Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> The print format will be a sticking point, I expect.
>
> Currently on `master` it typically does not look like what you show
> above but like:
>
>     (closure ENV (x y) (message "%S" x) (+ x y))
> or
>     (closure ENV (x y) DOCSTRING (interactive IFORM) (message "%S" x) (+ x y))
>
> For `prin1` with my PoC it currently looks like:
>
>     #[(x y) ((message "%S" x) (+ x y)) ENV]
> or
>     #[(x y) ((message "%S" x) (+ x y)) ENV nil DOCSTRING IFORM]
>
> and I'd rather not try to be too clever about it (it should be fairly
> rare to use `prin1` on such things).  For `cl-print` we (and users) can
> choose, and I currently print it as
>
>     #f(interpreted-function ARGS BODYHASH)
>
> because I basically kept the same code as used for compiled functions
> (obeying the same `cl-print-compiled` var) but we could make it look
> more "normal", like:
>
>     #f(lambda (x y) (message "%S" x) (+ x y))

I'm not so concerned with appearances, so there's no need to go out of
one's way to retain a print representation similar to the old one.

> [ or #f(λ (x y) (message "%S" x) (+ x y)) 🙂 ]

You're killing me...  :-)