bug#43265: [External] : bug#43265: 28.0.50; Inconsistent fontifying in elisp-mode

[Tassilo Horn]

>> Skimming that thread, I can't see any explanation for why we don't
>> check that special forms are in a function position, while we do that
>> for macros? I.e.,

Me neither, and as Stefan said, that's a change in that behavior has not
been intended by my patch.  It's intention was to highlight all macros
(except those declared with no-font-lock-keyword), no matter when they
are loaded.  E.g., when a new macro gets defined, it should also be
highlighted.

>> (setq a '(if a b))   is currently fontified incorrectly, while
>> (setq a '(when a b)) is fontified correctly.
>
> Really?  Are you sure one is correct and the other not,
> and that you have it the right way round? 
>
>  (setq a '(setq b d))
>  (setq a '(if a b))
>  (setq a '(when a b))
>  (setq a '(and a b))
>
> Nowadays, all of those `setq's, the `if', and the `and'
> are highlighted; poor-boy `when' isn't. :-(

All but `when' are special forms, so Lars is right that the distinction
is between special forms vs. macros.

> But is it really "correct" to fontify _any_ of the names
> in those quoted sexps as if they were being used with
> their active meanings - as code?  In that context they're
> just data - list elements.

Yeah, the special forms should probably not be highlighted here.

Bye,
Tassilo