From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl>
Subject: Re: Why does evaluating a piece of Elisp code seemingly not expand a
 macro?
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 21:03:33 +0100
Message-ID: <8737tu8xka.fsf@mbork.pl>
References: <87a8o7duj6.fsf@mbork.pl> <878u3rcdpu.fsf@gmail.com>
	<87io2r95n2.fsf@mbork.pl>
	<jwvio2rf10h.fsf-monnier+gmane.emacs.help@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41128)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mbork@mbork.pl>) id 1aLG1g-00026D-Ll
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:03:45 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mbork@mbork.pl>) id 1aLG1d-0005jA-Ft
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:03:44 -0500
In-reply-to: <jwvio2rf10h.fsf-monnier+gmane.emacs.help@gnu.org>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org


On 2016-01-18, at 14:54, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

>> Does it mean that C-M-x is different than loading?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Or C-x C-e, for that matter?
>
> As well.
>
>> Is this covered by the manual?  (If not, it might need correcting.)
>
> Not really.  The basic idea is that macroexpansion can take place
> *anytime* (tho, before the code is actually executed).  If you care
> about when expansion takes place you probably have a bug.

Does that mean that it's possible that a function definition contains
unexpanded macros?

Does that mean that `symbol-function' will expand them?

Does that mean that if I define a macro, then a function using that
macro, and then change the definition of the macro, the behavior of the
function is undefined?

Sorry for so many questions, but I really want to understand this.
(Also, when that happens, I might send a patch for the manual.)

>         Stefan

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University