[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Should `indirect-function' be preferred over `fboundp'?

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Should `indirect-function' be preferred over `fboundp'?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 10:42:27 +0300

> From: Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net>
> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:08:48 +0000
> (defalias 'yant/foo 'yant/bar)
> (fboundp 'yant/foo) ; => t
> (funcall 'yant/foo) ; => ERROR: Symbol function definition is void: yant/foo
> In contrast, `indirect-function' does a better job determining whether a
> given symbol can be called as a function:
> (indirect-function 'yant/foo) ; => nil
> Is it something widely known?

The ELisp manual says:

 -- Function: fboundp symbol
     This function returns ‘t’ if the symbol has an object in its
     function cell, ‘nil’ otherwise.  It does not check that the object
     is a legitimate function.

So this is at least documented.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]