Re: sea-level rise of byte-compilation warnings [was: Fixing...byte-compilation warnings...]

[Ivan Andrus]

On Nov 16, 2015, at 4:48 PM, Artur Malabarba <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Drew Adams <address@hidden> writes:

>> FWIW, my crystal ball whispers that just analyzing
>> the code for sexps that are protected by `fboundp'
>> might go a long way toward eliminating many spurious
>> warnings.
> 
> My psychic senses agree.

I thought this seemed like a reasonable (and potentially simple) thing to do, 
so I went looking and there is already `byte-compile-maybe-guarded’.    Perhaps 
it isn’t working correctly or could be expanded to include more cases.  What’s 
an example of such a spurious warning?

-Ivan