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

Reply via email to