bug#47427: [External] : Re: bug#47427: 26.3; 1. Please define a built-in predicate `plistp', 2. wrong type wrong-type-argument error

[Drew Adams]

> > I meant that if we really had an (accurate) error msg
> > saying that the plist wasn't proper then in order to
> > test that for each `plist-put' or whatever we'd have
> > to traverse every plist argument, to see if it really
> > is proper.
> >
> > To test that `(a b c)' isn't a proper plist we'd need
> > to check that the number of elements is even.
> 
> We are not going to check that, because it wouldn't be
> backwards-compatible.

Good.

If we don't use `plistp' in such cases then it's fine to
add it.  And it's not important to do so.

Then see my previous msg about the real problems.
This bug really shouldn't be about adding a `plistp'
predicate, as I indicated.  It all depends on how you
intend to deal with the real problems.