Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Could someone explain to me what the recent change in simple.el (appended > below) does? > > I'm especially wondering why we turned a check for `equiv' into a check for > (listp equiv), thus allowing nil values through: the following code doesn't > seem to make uch sense when equiv is nil.
Maybe consp was intended rather? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
