bug#72279: [PATCH] Non-local exits from outside the lexical scope are caught by cl-block

[Thuna <thuna.cing@gmail.com>]

> BTW, for the second patch a simpler solution is to expand
>
>     (cl-block A FOO)
> to
>     (let ((cl--block--A ',(make-symbol "A")))
>       (catch cl--block--A FOO))
>
> and
>
>     (cl-return B FOO)
> to
>     (throw cl--block--B FOO)
>
> which will signal an "unknown variable cl--block--B" if a `cl-return` is
> used outside of its block.

Aha, yes, that would indeed be simpler.

> But the optimization of `cl-block` when the tag is not used is
> important, so I don't think it's a good approach.

I don't have any particular complaints against keeping this
optimization, but for the record would you be able to expand on what
exactly the problem is?  It doesn't seem obvious to me that unused
`catch'es would make such a meaningful difference.

> Yup, as I said, the "optimization" is important (most of the
> `cl-block`s are implicit and unused, IME).

It would be nice if this would be documented at least in a comment above
`cl-block', even though it's unlikely that it will see too many changes.

>> I see two possible solutions, either define a (setf catch) or switch
>> to defsubst instead of cl-defsubst.
>
> I don't think we can implement a `setf catch` (tho we could probably
> come up with a hack which works in practice for those
> cl-defstruct slots).  🙁
>
> IIRC for the slot accessors `defsubst` would lead to worse code than
> what we currently get with `cl-defsubst` so it wouldn't be as good, but
> I believe we could use `define-inline` instead.

That sounds like a solution.  Defining a hack for `setf catch' seems
like it would lead to a lot of problems down the line, so it would be
better to put it off until someone comes up with a good way to do it
(though I doubt it is possible given dynamic exits).