Re: Declaring Lisp function types

[Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com>]

> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 10:13 PM
> From: "Andrea Corallo" <acorallo@gnu.org>
> To: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Cc: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>, "Stefan Kangas" <stefankangas@gmail.com>, "Adam Porter" <adam@alphapapa.net>, "Stefan Monnier" <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>, "Arthur Miller" <arthur.miller@live.com>
> Subject: Re: Declaring Lisp function types
>
> Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > I'd like to progress on this but in order to do that we should pick a
> > syntax.
> >
> > Of the three most discussed syntaxes in this thread my order of
> > preference is (by examples):
> >
> > 1:
> >
> > (defun sum (a b)
> >   (declare (function (integer integer) integer))
> >   (+ a b))
> >
> > 2:
> >
> > (defun sum (a b)
> >   (declare (type (function (integer integer) integer)))
> >   (+ a b))
> >
> > 3:
> >
> > (defun sum (a b)
> >   (declare (type (integer integer) integer))
> >   (+ a b))
> >
> > For the reasons I've already expressed: 1 I like it, 2 I'm okay with it,
> > 3 I very much dislike it.
> >
> > Maintainers WDYT?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >   Andrea
>
> To make a summary of my understanding of this conversation on the
> various options so far:
>
> A couple of people mentioned would be a good idea to consider CL's
> syntax but this is problematic for how our declare machinery works.
>
> I think Eli and I preferred solution 1.

I approve of preferred solution 1

> Stefan suggested we go for 2 as it's more verbose (and this should
> discourage users at using it too much).

Do not like increase of verbosity or intentions towards discouraging
functionalities that are inherently acceptable to use.  If some things
should not be done, there should be no tools for them, especially not
emanating from an official release, as I am more for robustness as the
ultimate completion step.

> Adam strongly opposed to 1 as it conflicts with his proposal [1] but
> AFAIU he agreed later on that thread on another solution so I guess the
> conflict should not be there anymore.
>
> If I've miss-summarized any opinion indeed please feel free to rectify.
>
> I think we should make a decision (maintainers) so we can progress on
> this.
>
> Thanks
>
>   Andrea
>
> [1] <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2024-03/msg00118.html>
>
>