From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Vibhav Pant Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] unsafep: Add support for (funcall) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:10:32 +0530 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1488297819 17537 195.159.176.226 (28 Feb 2017 16:03:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:03:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "emacs-devel@gnu.org" To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 28 17:03:35 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cikFS-00042w-4h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:03:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34842 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cikFY-0001SC-5D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:03:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35696) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cijtX-00082J-Qf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:40:56 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cijtW-00063E-EC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:40:55 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-yw0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c05::231]:33872) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cijtW-00061P-8f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:40:54 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-yw0-x231.google.com with SMTP id p77so10936273ywg.1 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 07:40:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=C/msQ2C4Dd/kY1yEiDHIb2inrIKlsi2NQT2AJxnrZ6g=; b=u3FTrhC2byHj192Nemb6FCUaWrmpZRZ0c8FSRyap4VeSiXAgt18i6AkGxL/+ylczp9 pfprGxc21pHMqlGc7I8SuLdlN3KqhwEJtPjTXxLTTBG1D7fVN4r6bDGSam0AoMrQ7eon XTDYdMO57gOdlGhSk/BVilKaDaVGJwl07HHtHRVojYigXzlkw//GpiDfh8eXZhFXhPo2 lhE0CQNmbHikUteml8DNIa7Nne9QgL3TvSS155797bbIdWIUBibkUnYfKrIxNivVoK+E hM985cTJ5mXmrYfuv46hRi1pOm0Ri2qxAbjL72p3DbOIQmymZWneArMMvocaaRQ0p1C0 N9QA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=C/msQ2C4Dd/kY1yEiDHIb2inrIKlsi2NQT2AJxnrZ6g=; b=nGkCnnC+40z+gvO+To1tuwfzhQg1e5fD0UxpEbK/0XIONRo6bo0eAWQ+8aeKw0Syx5 9/A0iTyr5vgtomTIlGwaiCA7SbzCoNnw3ZD8vpxQ6Y+hUqYlvweObz2fURzwkktDIkni t9PCu0gTX8C5rX63RJ0iCC2dIJ7qI9O3A3u0MdNGgDXnBFmvWZVUbW9fo3iVHIt8ox2S 7GhKujVQIAmjYvEhqdoCmNhNnXw5cZmQGTWqi5uQ1Kp55DlEivpzeCN7Ksf9TB1hqC9n Prfrpfj1ZiMcMvq41AZpOEhVfyGJBM/KUfWuJuguofQL79TBNNWKg1iZTakxfhpCTWcV KfMg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lJ+JueVhiS+UqfdNJRTDsdQkkJM18KxgPbml17CJOvlHo58OwCVIL3wBm5scjK6VOi2fJyrLHG4LwQHA== X-Received: by 10.37.197.207 with SMTP id v198mr1109032ybe.33.1488296453120; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 07:40:53 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.13.212.150 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 07:40:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4002:c05::231 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:212649 Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > Hmm... I don't quite get it: > > (funcall ' ...) > > is better written as > > ( ...) > > so why/when do you see such code? Could we rewrite it before unsafep > gets to look at it. Indeed, byte-compile-funcall rewrites such forms. I've just added this to remove a potential false positive from unsafep, as it's not only the byte compiler and optimizer that use it (for instance, ses.el uses it to warn the user about "unsafe" formulae). -- Vibhav Pant vibhavp@gmail.com