Re: ~`symbol-function' to get code as list even when byte-compiled?

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

> (re-search-forward "^Question")
>
> Here is some interesting code. What's interesting is:
> when this code executes, it changes itself, i.e.
> the code changes the code!
>
> But it isn't a macro which is a program that produces
> a new program based on its own logic and non-evaluated
> input data.
>
> On the contrary, here we deal all with ordinary
> functions (defuns) where one changes the other.
> Does that always happen? No - only when it is needed!
>
> See the entire code here [1]. Go there if you want to
> see this in execution as it probably is based on some
> other functions as well. The below code is for display
> purposes ONLY!
>
> Question: this is all working thanks to
> `symbol-function' which is used to get the code of the
> function as data, so it can be examined and
> manipulated. However, if I byte-compile the code
> (which I always do), `symbol-function' doesn't return
> a lambda function which is also a list, but instead
> just a function #[...] which isn't a list. So then it
> doesn't work!

This is your hint.


> I was able to do a workaround with `load-file' in
> .emacs to get all the functions in the file in
> evaluated form. But, can I do that specifically for
> a named function, *or*, can I extract the code in list
> format somehow even if compiled?

No.

But since you should not do that anyways, it should not be a problem.

Variables have been invented for a purpose.



-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                 http://www.informatimago.com/
“The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a
dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to
keep the man from touching the equipment.” -- Carl Bass CEO Autodesk