Re: Wierd Elispsisms (was: trunk r113793: lisp/*.el: More lexical-binding warnings' cleanups.)

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> wrote:

> look bizarre. As someone who is not strong on Elisp, I was puzzled at
> first. Finally realized that the point is to force a boolean value for
> `compressed'.

Both expressions are common enough.

> And, if there exists a reason for using nil/t instead of the original
> value here and elsewhere, why doesn't exist a function for casting an
> arbitrary value to a boolean?

Generally speaking, I'd say (not (not X)) or (and X t) can be
optimized and a funcall not. But anyway, I suspect the answer is, why
use a function when you have a simple idiom every lisp programmer will
understand and have quite internalized?  To me, what you're asking is
as if you objected to the common use of (or x y) instead of (if x x
y). Idioms.

    J