Re: [PATCH] unsafep: Add support for (funcall)

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> Hmm... I don't quite get it:
>> 
>> (funcall '<sym> ...)
>> 
>> is better written as
>> 
>> (<sym> ...)
>> 
>> 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).

But unsafep must call something like macroexpand-all or something like
that, so we could (should?) arrange for that to do the rewrite.


        Stefan