Re: [PATCH] unsafep: Add support for (funcall)

[Vibhav Pant]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Stefan Monnier
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Hmm... I don't quite get it:
>
>     (funcall '<sym> ...)
>
> is better written as
>
>     (<sym> ...)
>
> so why/when do you see such code?  Could we rewrite it before unsafep
> gets to look at it.

Indeed, byte-compile-funcall rewrites such forms. I've just added this to remove
a potential false positive from unsafep, as it's not only the byte compiler and
optimizer that use it (for instance, ses.el uses it to warn the user
about "unsafe"
formulae).


-- 
Vibhav Pant
address@hidden