Re: How to tame compiler?

[Emanuel Berg]

Stefan Monnier wrote:

>>> Here, as in your other example, you have to use `eval`,
>>> because `command-history` was defined to contain a list of
>>> ELisp expressions and those can't be used other than via
>>> `eval`.
>>>
>>> So I'll grant you a pass for this time.
>>>
>>> If you were in a position to control the format of history
>>> variable, then you wouldn't have to use `eval` here, OTOH:
>>> you could define that variable to hold a list of
>>> *functions* and you'd just use `funcall` instead of
>>> `eval`.
>>
>> OK, clear...
>
> Of course, you can't "search" for functions the way you do
> with the `cl-find-if`, and functions can't be printed in
> a user-friendly way, so there's a good reason for
> `command-history` not to contain just functions.
>
> So if you wanted to replace it with a history that can be
> used without `eval`, you'd probably make the new variable
> contain a list where every element is of the form (FUNCTION
> . ARGS), so that you'd replace `eval` with `apply`, and
> you'd recommend that the FUNCTION be a symbol rather than an
> anonymous function, to be sure that it can be compared and
> printed in a useful way.

Okay, no, we are using `eval' and it works. If someone says we
shouldn't do it we say we do it because of the format of
`command-history'. If they say anything more after that
I don't feel we have to say anything.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal