Re: safe-get

[Kim F. Storm]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

> Is there a reason not to make ordinary `get' safe?  

Not really, except
a) it will not catch errors in the symbol plist.
b) it is slightly slower

>                                                     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.


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-get is new in 22.1, so I don't see any big
problems doing that...

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk