[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: tramp-compat-funcall -> compat-funcall?
From: |
Michael Albinus |
Subject: |
Re: tramp-compat-funcall -> compat-funcall? |
Date: |
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:22:02 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
> [ The `subrp' check looks wrong/redundant. `functionp' should already return
> non-nil if `function` is a subr (unless it's a special form, in which
> case using `funcall` would be wrong anyway). ]
IIRC, it was not the case in older Emacsen and/or XEmacs. If `functionp'
behaves this way since Emacs 23, Tramp could remove the check for
`subrp', indeed.
> IOW, if there's a kind of situation that recurs often enough to warrant
> something like (tramp-)compat-funcall you should report this as a bug.
`tramp-compat-funcall' is almost used for backward compatibility. Who
shall be the target of a bug report then?
> Stefan
Best regards, Michael.
- tramp-compat-funcall -> compat-funcall?, Ted Zlatanov, 2016/09/22
- Re: tramp-compat-funcall -> compat-funcall?, Ted Zlatanov, 2016/09/22
- Re: tramp-compat-funcall -> compat-funcall?, Stefan Monnier, 2016/09/23
- Re: tramp-compat-funcall -> compat-funcall?, Michael Albinus, 2016/09/24
- Re: tramp-compat-funcall -> compat-funcall?, Stefan Monnier, 2016/09/24
- Re: tramp-compat-funcall -> compat-funcall?, Michael Albinus, 2016/09/24
- Re: tramp-compat-funcall -> compat-funcall?, Stefan Monnier, 2016/09/24
- Re: tramp-compat-funcall -> compat-funcall?, Michael Albinus, 2016/09/25