Re: Circular records: how do I best handle them? (The new correct warning position branch now bootstraps in native compilation!)

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> >> Hmm... circularity is quite normal in data structures, yes.
>> >> But presumably this is only applied to source code where circularity is
>> >> very rare.  Could it be that you end up recursing in elements which
>> >> actually aren't part of the source code (and hence can't have
>> >> symbols-with-positions)?
>> > I honestly don't know at the moment.
>> I think it's worth the effort to try and track this down.  Maybe we can
>> completely circumvent the problem.
> I don't think there are any such cases.

Hmm... I thought this whole circular records thread started because you
bumped into such a case.  I feel like I'm misunderstanding something.

>> So the symposes can end up in 2 places:
>> - in the .elc file: no need to strip the pos here, just make sure the
>>   symbols get printed without their position.
> The positions get stripped before the code is dumped to the .elc.

Why bother?  You can just have a `print-symbols-without-position` which
you let-bind around the printing code.

>> - elsewhere: that's the problematic part because this only occurs where
>>   the source code gets stealthy passed elsewhere, e.g. when a macro
>>   calls (put ARG1 'foo ARG2) during the macro expansion (rather than
>>   returning that chunk of code in the expansion).
> This isn't a problem.  If it is a compiled macro doing this, the
> positions will already be gone from the symbols.  If it is from an
> uncompiled macro, XSYMBOL in Feval's subroutines does the Right Thing.

I didn't mean sympos coming from the macro but sympos coming from the
args passed to the macro.  Something like:

    (defmacro foobar-really (arg1 arg2)
      (puthash arg1 arg2 foobar-remember)
      `(progn (do-something ,arg1) (do-something-else ,arg2)))

The `remember` property will end up containing symbols-with-pos if
`arg2` contains symbols.

> It's used all over the place.  In eval-when/and-compile, it is used
> before the evaluation.  It is used before dumping the byte compiled code
> to the file.elc, and before passing this code to the native compiler.
> Several (?most) of the byte-compile-file-form-... functions use it.
> It's used in the newish keymap functions near the end of bytecomp.el, in
> byte-compile-annotate-call-tree, etc.  Also in cl-define-compiler-macro,
> and internal-macro-expand-for-load.

Interesting.  Why do you need it at so many places?
What is it usually used for?

> Additionally, also from Fput, to prevent symbols with positions
> getting into symbol property lists.

IIUC this is for the kind of example I showed above (tho I used
`puthash` instead of `put`)?

> Yes, I have to do this.  I am still debating whether just to do it
> (which might slow things down quite a bit), or to do it in a
> condition-case handler after the recursion has exceeded the 1,600
> max-lisp-eval-depth.  I'm inclined towards the latter at the moment.

Using a (weak) hash-table may actually speed things up if you call it
from lots and lots of places and it thus ends up being applied several
times (redundantly) to the same data.

> For other Lisp objects with a read syntax, such as char tables and
> decorated strings, I intend to amend the reader just to output plain
> symbols for them.

Sounds reasonable.


        Stefan