[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#23957: [PATCH] Make fboundp an alias for symbol-function
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
bug#23957: [PATCH] Make fboundp an alias for symbol-function |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Jul 2016 20:06:54 +0000 (UTC) |
> I didn't put too much thought into reading the FIXME;
Nor did I. ;-)
> I figured that someone smarter than myself knew what they were
> doing when requesting the change.
Yes, no doubt s?he had a good reason. Or at least a reason.
But apparently it was not recorded, so we can only wonder or
guess.
My guess is that the person just figured that, like `member',
people can use `symbol-function' as a general Boolean - which
is true. But `fboundp' has been around forever, and there is
no telling what code might expect its value to be either `t'
or `nil'. And if someone really wants to use `symbol-function'
to either get the function or test whether there is one, s?he
can already do that.
> I'd personally argue that anyone making an explicit check for t, or
> anything that particularly needs t rather than any true value is just
> asking for lossage, but I can see why people would disagree with that
> assertion.
It doesn't matter what we might think of such a check. The point
is that such checks might exist, and there is really no good
reason (that I can see) for breaking such code. Again: anyone
can already use `symbol-function' to get the desired effect, and
its name speaks much better to the combined behavior desired in
that case.
> FWIW, In every placed I changed occurrences of fboundp to
> symbol-function, both in Lisp and C, used only the truthiness
> of the return rather than explicitly checking for t.
That's irrelevant (IMO). The code that GNU distributes with
Emacs is but a small part of the Emacs-Lisp code that is out
there.
> I also ran the test suite with and without my patch applied,
> and noticed no difference in the number of failing tests.
Again - you were testing in the tiny GNU Emacs distributed-code
sandbox. The Emacs world is a much bigger box.
> Anyways, I'm willing to toss this patch and do something else
> if that is the general consensus.
I can't speak for the consensus, but that would be my hope. And
thanks for pitching in! Sorry to seem so critical of a first foray
into helping.
- bug#23957: [PATCH] Make fboundp an alias for symbol-function, Robert Cochran, 2016/07/12
- bug#23957: [PATCH] Make fboundp an alias for symbol-function, Sora Firestorm, 2016/07/12
- bug#23957: [PATCH] Make fboundp an alias for symbol-function, Drew Adams, 2016/07/12
- bug#23957: [PATCH] Make fboundp an alias for symbol-function, Stefan Monnier, 2016/07/12
- bug#23957: [PATCH] Make fboundp an alias for symbol-function, Robert Cochran, 2016/07/13
- bug#23957: [PATCH] Make fboundp an alias for symbol-function, Robert Cochran, 2016/07/14