Re: tramp-compat-funcall -> compat-funcall?

[Michael Albinus]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> [ The `subrp' check looks wrong/redundant.  `functionp' should already return
>   non-nil if `function` is a subr (unless it's a special form, in which
>   case using `funcall` would be wrong anyway).  ]

IIRC, it was not the case in older Emacsen and/or XEmacs. If `functionp'
behaves this way since Emacs 23, Tramp could remove the check for
`subrp', indeed.

> IOW, if there's a kind of situation that recurs often enough to warrant
> something like (tramp-)compat-funcall you should report this as a bug.

`tramp-compat-funcall' is almost used for backward compatibility. Who
shall be the target of a bug report then?

>         Stefan

Best regards, Michael.