bug#23465: 25.0.93; `lambda' after hash-quote not highlighted as keyword

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

On 05/11/2016 12:34 PM, Anders Lindgren wrote:

> I thought they were the preferred way to write lambda:s. All examples in
> the elisp reference guide use #' and there are almost 400 uses of them
> in the Emacs source.

Since #'(lambda is fully equivalent to (lambda, we don't want to write 
the former anymore. The existing uses are probably holdouts from the 
time when the equivalence wasn't true yet.

I see only 4 hits on #'(lambda in our .texi files, and one of them (in 
functions.texi) says that the usages are equivalent and further 
elaborates on that. The others should be changed.

>     As an aside, it would be great if we could get rid of the
>     duplication between lisp--el-non-funcall-position-p vs
>     elisp--form-quoted-p, elisp--expect-function-p and some bits inside
>     elisp-completion-at-point. Or reduce it, at least.
>
>
> Good points. However, shouldn't this be done in the master branch, not
> in emacs-25?

Yep.

> When we're talking about enhancements. Currently, lisp special forms
> (like "if" and "and") as well as elisp macros are highlighted using the
> keyword face. Shouldn't it be better to use two different faces, or at
> least give the user the option to configure this separately?

Let's not give the users a choice, it's not exactly a meaningful one.

We should rather have a standard which faces to use where that's kept 
consistent across major modes.

Alas, our choice is not easy here, since `font-lock-builtin-face' is 
currently used for keyword symbols.

 > I would
 > imagine that the real keywords would no longer stand out in lisp
 > source using lots of macros. (Again, this is not for emacs-25.)

What's a keyword in Lisp? I'm not sure you can draw a definite line, 
especially since we could have a primitive defined in C in one version 
of Emacs, and moved to Lisp in the next version.