Re: [Q] Some cosmetic namespace cleanup, glyphs.el, coding.el.
Ar an séú lá déag de mí Eanair, scríobh Stephen J. Turnbull:
QUERY
Aidan Kehoe writes:
> 2009-01-15 Aidan Kehoe <kehoea(a)parhasard.net>
>
> * coding.el (force-coding-system-equivalency):
> Move three functions that we don't want to advertise to being
> anonymous lambdas instead.
Would it be possible to use flet instead?
Not in a constructive way, it would be necessary to do #'symbol-function
before the binding went out of scope.
In general, this kind of patch seems perverse to me. I understand
why
you want to hide the functions (limitation to two namespaces is one
really sucky thing about Emacs Lisp), but I worry about removing the
self-documenting aspect of the code, and about things like Lisp
backtraces.
I’ll give the macro in coding.el a docstring.
Lisp backtraces always show the constants in a compiled function in full, by
the way. So, if handed something that looks like this:
#<compiled-function (symbol) "...(23)" [spec symbol saved-face
face-defface-spec reset-face face-display-set nil] 5>
you can grep for 'spec symbol saved-face face-defface-spec reset-face' in,
for example, source-lisp/*.elc , and you’ll get the original function.
--
¿Dónde estará ahora mi sobrino Yoghurtu Nghe, que tuvo que huir
precipitadamente de la aldea por culpa de la escasez de rinocerontes?
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Patches mailing list
XEmacs-Patches(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-patches