Re: string-to-unibyte in image-jpeg-p

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 16:39:06 -0400
> 
> - I like the fact that it avoids duplicating the function name.
> - It makes it possible for C-M-x to work correctly (e.g. remove the
>   obsolescence if you remove the `obsolete` from the `declare`
>   (or if you C-M-x on a completely different definition which happens to
>   have the same name) tho admittedly the current implementation doesn't
>   actually do it).
> - More generally, it attaches the declaration to the function's
>   *definition* rather than to its *name*, which I think is TRT (even
>   tho, again, the underlying implementation still ends up associating
>   the two via the name).
> - I guess it's more declarative (tho this word tends to be used in
>   programming languages a bit like "goodness" in cereal packages or
>   the way "GT" was used in cars (back when I was interested in them)).

Thanks, I will think what should be said in the manual based on this.