Re: Distinguishing `consp` and `functionp`

[Stefan Monnier]

>> While it's in the vicinity, this is not directly related to my patch.
> I know, your patch doesn't address this.  But if I understand
> correctly it makes at least functionp return nil for the second one.
> Or at least makes way for it.

The patch I sent doesn't change `functionp`, but indeed makes way for
such a change (and changing `functionp` is the driving force behind it).

> And that's a plus in my book.

:-)

> Alright.  I wouldn't be surprised if I wasn't passing lists as lambdas
> around in that extension.  I used to do that, and saw many fall prety
> to this, when their lisps allow it.  The result is harder to debug code
> and harder to instrument.

I suspect all long-time Lispers have committed such sins at some point.
I'm to blame for the godawful `vc-exec-after` example I sent earlier today.


        Stefan