[Q] Some cosmetic namespace cleanup, glyphs.el, coding.el.

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

QUERY

Aidan Kehoe writes:

 > 2009-01-15  Aidan Kehoe  <kehoea at 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?

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.