Matthieu Moy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Michael Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Matthieu Moy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> So, keeping the string is IMO more intuitive, and probably slightly >>> more efficient. >> >> I completely disagree with the "intuitive" part. You will never >> `funcall' a string. Just a lambda form or a symbol. So we should >> make `dvc-funcall' take a symbol. > > If I read > > (defun foo (...) > ...) > > (dvc-funcall 'foo ...) > > I really expect the second to refer to the first (and this kind of > things do happen, when dvc-foo is a dispatching function, and > dvc-dvc-foo is a possible target for the dispatch).
You shouldn't have that expectation. It's called "dvc-funcall" for a
reason, and it makes perfect sense for it to not call the exact function
"foo". What does not make sense, ever, is using a funcall-like function
on a string.
--
Michael Olson -- FSF Associate Member #652 |
http://mwolson.org/ -- Jabber: mwolson_at_hcoop.net | /` |\ | | |
Sysadmin -- Hobbies: Lisp, GP2X, HCoop | |_] | \| |_|
Projects: Emacs, Muse, ERC, EMMS, ErBot, DVC, Planner |
pgpwJikIcrjpK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dvc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/dvc-dev
