>>34I've given it some thought and I don't believe that a macro is the correct tool to "replace" all function calls of foo to bar. It's not even clear what that means, unless you talk about function pointers. Even though
>>32's example can be modified to handle the FUNCALL case, there's more things one can come up with to screw with the macro:
; to demonstrate:
(defun myfuncall ...)
(myfuncall #'foo ...)
Therefore, if anything, the solution used by
>>32 is just fine. What
>>9 wrote is also fine, only that it has to be used on the macroexpanded AST. Seriously,
>>1 trolled us all by posting an ill-imposed problem.