Re: (declare (type (function...

[Marco Antoniotti <marco.antoniotti@unimib.it>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1816 bytes --]

Hi

apologies for being such a PITA.

(defun foo (x y)
   (declare (*ftype* (function (integer number) number)))
   (+ x y))

Is fine with me, as long as the following is also valid.

(defun foo (x y)
   (declare (*ftype* (function (integer number) number) *foo*))
   (+ x y))

Of course, I can go even further (never said that ANSI CL is perfect).

(defun foo (x y)
   (declare (*type* integer x)
            (*type* number y)
            (*values* number))
  (+ x y))

This should tag the function in the same way (and note that *values*
declaration is a CL extension).

All the best

MA


On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 12:21 PM Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org> wrote:

> 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?
>
> Thanks
>
>   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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3074 bytes --]