Re: Why is FUNC in cl-callf not allowed to be an expression?

[Michael Heerdegen]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> >   (cl-callf (with (if flag #'1+ #'1-)) my-number)
>
> Note that the gv-modify macro we discussed does not allow that either:
> it doesn't funcall the result of an EXPR.

Yeah, I know.  But cl-callf already exists, and the first argument is
interpreted as a function, so would it hurt to remove the restriction to
fbound symbols?

OTOH, it probably wouldn't be good idea to complicate cl-callf if we
also want to add other stuff.

Would you want to see both gv-modify and gv-place-bind (or however we
call it) added?  I tend to be more a fan of gv-place-bind.

Michael.