I'm sorry, the example I gave is fine -- that code of course is executed at
compile-time only.

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Ilya Shlyakhter <ilya_shl@alum.mit.edu>wrote:

> Right now, the cl package itself seems to violate the rule against calling
> its functions at runtime.
> E.g.
>
> (define-compiler-macro assoc* (&whole form a list &rest keys)
> ;; ...
>            (if (floatp-safe (cl-const-expr-val a))
>  ;; ...
>
> floatp-safe is a function in package cl, and the compiled code will call
> it at runtime.
> Am I missing something?
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>wrote:
>
>> > Agree about cl- being better than ecl- .
>> > Btw, if remove-if becomes defalias'ed to cl-remove-if, aren't the two
>> calls
>> > indistinguishable to the byte compiler?
>>
>> The name is different, so the compiler can definitely tell the difference.
>>
>> > If they are, and calling cl-remove wouldn't trigger a warning,
>> > wouldn't remove-if calls also become warning-less?
>>
>> Not necessarily, no.
>>
>>
>>        Stefan
>>
>
>