From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: `eval'ing form in the current lexical environment Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2024 22:49:41 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87ikxh3uc0.fsf@gmail.com> <87y16c3acc.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="25883"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Thuna Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 08 04:50:32 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sQeSW-0006b8-2c for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2024 04:50:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sQeRw-0001Ve-Tm; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 22:49:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sQeRu-0001VM-GD for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 22:49:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sQeRp-00083o-0b for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 22:49:54 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7981B80390; Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:49:47 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1720406982; bh=b/2kchkDuWtVJW38Zvsm8lXPgbHLtvDYPh/68HPv0CI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=fZwFpO/wLJNXEgcBLa6jzPBg4wvaMI8Md4huLxlwZ6wuRhFwdO5IFRIYrfvZt1lOx r2zMCzA70jUWqI2NS92K+7iQsPUkjlj+9WO8p6jRd6r1k4Jd1WSbjq++AuwOOz1npL bvCWWo8EIJg6+XnFQ62lfevqBBXx5EFQE9RN7bbrpnBf6TyqL0YPi4GrNQKoyvMkrO JKvM3vKbIbsj2gaeUKmd9M98tATXJetcXtQc6odTcdinNdjy0viisaSlejCsNC+l/W 2luqeAHzQp1QpoZHoaA7tTMiKPPv82CMNn0q4TBAJ+QBLi8VWepaiIb/tRtKa5iK6R Fvv+rOjg2W6Sw== Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 27E3280400; Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:49:42 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.245.253]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1AE312047D; Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:49:41 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87y16c3acc.fsf@gmail.com> (Thuna's message of "Mon, 08 Jul 2024 04:07:31 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:147117 Archived-At: > All macros are expanded and processed, thus `(,head ,@args) above is > /necessarily/ a function call... that is, unless it is later redefined > as a macro. I think this is the part I don't understand: why do you worry about `head` being a function (or undefined) during macro-expansion but a macro at run-time? If the code is compiled, such a change leads to an error and we blame the change, not the compiler. E.g. M-: (disassemble '(lambda () (foobar 5))) RET turns into the byte-code: byte code: args: nil 0 constant foobar 1 constant 5 2 call 1 3 return and this `call` just signals an error if `foobar` is not a function at run-time. So, I think what I'm saying is that you should probably not try to handle this case at all. Stefan