Re: Should `indirect-function' be preferred over `fboundp'?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net>
> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:08:48 +0000
> 
> (defalias 'yant/foo 'yant/bar)
> (fboundp 'yant/foo) ; => t
> (funcall 'yant/foo) ; => ERROR: Symbol function definition is void: yant/foo
> 
> In contrast, `indirect-function' does a better job determining whether a
> given symbol can be called as a function:
> 
> (indirect-function 'yant/foo) ; => nil
> 
> Is it something widely known?

The ELisp manual says:

 -- Function: fboundp symbol
     This function returns ‘t’ if the symbol has an object in its
     function cell, ‘nil’ otherwise.  It does not check that the object
     is a legitimate function.

So this is at least documented.