Re: Lisp watchpoints

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

>>> > Ffuncall does all necessary checks.
>>> 
>>> It would signal in case of error right? Currently the code is ignoring
>>> bad watcher elements (including out of range integers), but perhaps
>>> it's actually better to signal an error.
>> 
>> No, I think it would be better to report an error, and then continue,
>> perhaps after removing the watch.

> I'm thinking to just call display-warning then (removing the element
> looks like too much work to be worthwhile, having to modify the list
> while iterating over it is kind of annoying).

I don't think we should do anything different for the case where
Ffuncall signals an error because  the object is not a function than for
the case where the object *is* a function but its execution signals some
kind of error.

And the function may want to signal `setting-constant', so I think we're
better off just not trying to catch an error there at all.


        Stefan