Dear Andrea

The point is NOT to diverge from Common Lisp.  Such divergence is - IMHO -
unwarranted.  Plus, the proposal for the ftype declaration also carries
over to type declarations, which, again, are useful per se, even if the
compiler is "smart enough" (ok; this one is for old-timers :) )

Having said that, a provision can be made that a nameless ftype declaration
at a function top level refers to the "definenda" function.  Again, having
to use ftype instead of type is a consequence of ELisp being a 2-lisp.

Cheers

MA

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 8:47 AM Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Marco Antoniotti <marco.antoniotti@unimib.it> writes:
>
> > Ciao Andrea
> >
> > The presentation I attended gave me the idea of "ranting talks" at the
> next ELS :)
> >
> > Having said so, I now think that, to save goat and cabbage, what you
> want is
> >
> > (defun foo (x y)
> >    (declare (ftype (function (integer number) number) foo))
> >    (+ x y))
> >
> > Common lispers can live with that.
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > MA
>
> Ciao Mario,
>
> not sure what maintainers think about it, I'm not in love with this
> solution because one has to repeat 'foo' two times and we don't support
> anyway unsing declare inside a function to declare another one.
>
> Mmmhh
>
>    Andrea
>


-- 
Marco Antoniotti, Professor                   tel. +39 - 02 64 48 79 01
DISCo, University of Milan-Bicocca U14 2043   http://dcb.disco.unimib.it
Viale Sarca 336
I-20126 Milan (MI) ITALY