Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org>
>>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Stefan Monnier
>>>  <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
>>> Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 06:21:21 -0400
>>>
>>> Marco Antoniotti <marco.antoniotti@unimib.it> writes:
>>>
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> Dear Marco,
>>>
>>> I see your point and share the intent, given your provision 😃 for
>>>
>>> (defun foo (x y)
>>>    (declare (ftype (function (integer number) number)))
>>>    (+ x y))
>>>
>>> I'm personally okay with the change.
>>>
>>> Eli Stefan WDYT?
>>
>> Fine by me, thanks.
>
> Ok, I'll try to take care of this tomorrow.

Gut, should be in with a39a8060124.

Thanks

  Andrea

PS Marco you'll receive a customer satisfaction survey shortly, please
give us a good score 😀.