Subject: Re: bug#40968: 28.0.50; (apply nil)

From: Pip Cet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 11:49:26 +0000

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 11:24 AM Stefan Kangas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Pip Cet <[email-masked]> writes:
> I have a feeling I'm missing something obvious here.  The current
> function signature is:
>
>    (apply FUNCTION &rest ARGUMENTS)
>
> How would your proposal change that?

(apply FUNCTION ARGUMENT &rest ARGUMENTS), I guess. I missed it in the
first patch.

Note that the old signature suggests (apply FUNCTION) is equivalent to
(funcall FUNCTION), which it isn't. (For example, that's what ElDoc
indicates the first argument to apply is).

Again, I'm no longer sure what the right thing to do here is.  I think
I'm up to five different interpretations of (apply ARG) here,
depending on whether ARG is interpreted as FUNCTION, the last of the
ARGUMENTS, an ARGUMENT but not the last one, or a combination thereof,
and whether ARG is required to be a list or not...