bug#13052: 24.3.50; mention recent change of `kbd' to a function in NEWS

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:

> Thanks.  So I guess that means that if I have a similar (e.g., identical, for
> discussion) function and I put property `pure' on it then I will get the same
> optimization?

I think so, though I haven't really looked that much at byte-opt's code.

> What happens if someone erroneously adds that property to a function that is 
> not
> pure but whose args all satisfy `macroexp-const-p'?  Do you just lose the
> optimization or could something much worse happen?

I suppose (but again, I haven't studied the code) that some calls to
that function would likely be optimized away, which would cause
erroneous execution in case the function really does have side
effects.

> In any case, this property should be documented.

Not surprisingly, I disagree. I don't think it is intended to be used
by third-party packages. Documenting it is asking for trouble.

    Juanma