Re: CVS: Symbol's function definition is void: ignore-errors

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>]

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@iskon.hr> writes:

> > Yup.  That's why I want the byte-code, not the functions themselves.
> 
> But the byte-code doesn't have the whole info.  My point is that, for
> instance:
> 
> (disassemble
>   (lambda () (eql x 'bar)))
> 
> ...disassembles to code that uses `eq' because it's safe.  OTOH, this:
> 
> (disassemble
>   (lambda () (eql x y)))
> 
> ...disassembles to code that uses `equal', because EQUAL has its own
> byte-code instruction, and it's faster than calling `eql'.

Cool.  I didn't know about `define-compiler-macro'.  

> > I think it's mainly a name-pollution thing for RMS.  Having
> > `delete-duplicates' in the namespace will make people believe that's
> > a proper Emacs function and stuff.
> 
> Isn't it, really?  It ships with Emacs, it's GPL-ed, it's assigned to
> the FSF, it works nicely, it sings and it cooks for you.  If noone is
> supposed to use it, why is it there in the first place?

I think people are supposed to decide for themselves whether to load
cl, or something.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen