RE: [External] : Any reasons against having `fboundp-and-funcall' (equivalent to `bound-and-true-p')?

[Drew Adams]

> WDYT?

I think "Why?".

The trivial expansion is just as clear (nay, clearer), and nearly as succinct.

(and (fboundp function)
     (funcall function ,@arguments))))
___

Just one opinion.

(Of course, I feel the same about `bound-and-true-p', which has the additional 
disadvantage that its name doesn't proclaim that it returns the variable's 
symbol.)