Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I will revert my changes, and just make get safe...
>
> Good.
Done.
>
> But then, why don't we make plist-get safe
> and get rid of safe-plist-get, too ?
>
> Yes, we may as well.
Done.
--
Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cu
BTW, XEmacs has overloaded `get' so that when applied to an overlay it does
overlay-get, ...
I see no possible harm in that, so we may as well be compatible.
___
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo
Not really, except
a) it will not catch errors in the symbol plist.
That's not a drawback.
b) it is slightly slower
That's a slight drawback, but probably not significant.
I will revert my changes, and just make get safe...
Good.
But then, why don't we make plist-get safe
for Lisp programmers than introducing safe-get.
> The code would be simpler, the manual would be simpler, even
> etc/NEWS would be simpler.
I will revert my changes, and just make get safe...
But then, why don't we make plist-get safe
and get rid of safe-plist-get, too ?
IIRC, safe-plist
> Is there a reason not to make ordinary `get' safe? That would be
> simpler for Lisp programmers than introducing safe-get.
> The code would be simpler, the manual would be simpler, even
> etc/NEWS would be simpler.
Agreed. Same thing for safe-plist-get.
BTW, XEmacs has ov
Is there a reason not to make ordinary `get' safe? That would be
simpler for Lisp programmers than introducing safe-get.
The code would be simpler, the manual would be simpler, even
etc/NEWS would be simpler.
___
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-
