Re: Distinguishing `consp` and `functionp`

[Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>]

Hello, Eli.

On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 19:48:10 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2024 17:26:03 +0000
> > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>

> > Hello, Stefan.

> > On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 19:00:49 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > > Evasive non-answer number 1.

> > > That statement is mildly offensive.

> > But justified.

> It isn't, not here.  Please stop.  Bonus points for apologizing.

I apologise to you and the rest of the group (excluding SM) for being so
blunt.

> > You did not answer the points I made and the questions I
> > put.  You gave completely unsatisfactory "answers" which didn't offer
> > any information.  You answered like a politician, swerving awkward
> > points, and derailing the discussion onto topics the questions weren't
> > concerned with.

> All of this can be expressed politely, and given that English is your
> first language, you should have no problem coming up with a more
> polite wording.  So please do.

I've been coming up with "polite wording" with Stefan for over 20 years
now, when he's dodged answering questions.  It's never done any good.
What would you suggest I do in such situations?

I'm worried about his proposal for fundamental changes in the Lisp
machine.  I've asked him what the benefit of the proposed change will be
5 or 6 times, mostly politely, and got no meaningful answer any of those
times.

I suspect that there are no advantages to this proposal, only
disadvantages.  But I'm worried that I'll wake up some day to find it
installed on master anyway.  You've also expressed concern, albeit much
more gently.

Perhaps you could find a way of putting the question to Stefan in a way
which he would actually answer.

Thanks!

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).