while i agree that the documentation could make more distinction between
fundamental and composed (or "defined-by-conventional-use") types, i
figure that doing so might be a bad idea because it would constrain the
implementation.
since `facep' works like `functionp' (fsvo "like"), that should be what
programmers rely on. if in the future faces become fundamental, that
transition will be easier to handle if prior internals were left
unexposed (ignorance is bliss).
One of my concerns is that readers of the datatypes section will not know
that faces exist. This section is near the beginning of the manual, and it
can give the impression that it also presents all of the important
Emacs-Lisp objects.
At a minimum, I think it would help to mention that, although these are the
only datatypes, there are additional things of interest (like faces) that
are not listed here.
_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
