Subject: bug#56648: 29.0.50; Need for `compiled-function-p`

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2022 06:30:03 +0200

Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]> writes:

> This is because `byte-code-function-p` shouldn't be changed to return
> non-nil for native-code functions (both because it would break a lot of
> code and because the name would be too confusing), but several uses of
> `byte-code-function-p` actually want to know "is this an (inefficient)
> source code function or not" (e.g. in unidata-gen.el,
> loadup.el, bytecomp.el, ...).

Makes sense to me.  <bikeshed>But since the use case is "is this one of
those slow source code functions?" then why not reverse the logic and
call it `uncompiled-function-p'?</bikeshed>