Re: [PATCH] Fix clocktable scope parameter

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

Hello,

Eduardo Bellani <ebellani@gmail.com> writes:

> The old behavior was an eval on a form if that form was not a list of
> strings. The implicit expectation was for a list of strings to be
> returned by that eval call.
>
> The above seems to be a raw attempt to evaluate a function form. In that
> case, it seems more elegant to be more explicit and do a
>
>      (apply (car scope) (cdr scope))
>
>
> This also allows for passing arguments to the function without using the
> full power of eval.
>
> What do you guys think?

On the contrary, I think the above is a bit ambiguous, and doesn't bring
anything, since

  :scope (foo bar baz)

can also be written, if really needed,

  :scope (lambda () (foo bar baz))

I'd favor clarity here and suggest to accept a function of no argument.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou