Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden
> schrieb am Fr., 27. Nov. 2015 um 18:40 Uhr:
> From: Philipp Stephani <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:40:23 +0000
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> I believe the line with "<subr module-call>" is suboptimal, in that it
> looks alien and includes all kinds of unneeded and weirdly formatted
> data. AFAIU, the reason is that we deliberately unintern module-call.
> Should we perhaps reconsider that decision, so that the backtrace is
> in more familiar form? What exactly are the dangers of having
> module-call exposed as any other primitive?
> - Somebody calls it with the wrong type. Right now it doesn't do any type
> checking, so that would crash/be UB.
We can add checks to countermand that.
> - An existing function outside of Emacs might already be called like that.
Not really a problem, IMO.
We could rename the function to "internal-module-call" to make it even less likely to clash.