From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Declaring Lisp function types Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:48:01 -0400 Message-ID: References: <8634sdjgoj.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="20769"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com, adam@alphapapa.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, arthur.miller@live.com To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 29 19:49:01 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1s1V7c-00058P-RC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:49:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s1V6s-0002Jm-Ou; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:48:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s1V6i-0002IR-Rt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:48:05 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s1V6h-0006AW-7p; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:48:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To: From; bh=ZYgEKmJC4FidcE6nYqQaPUoppKaGVrF7variJxW69ns=; b=qcH1S8fqkHeRsgq26KpP jjEA/xMWWahNO77EKnzwdahAf+MxuddAM+1QK+iNYOZAfBAEj/bUH/I6NbTPll6cyKNrX8Z9kT+Y4 nRsMrPashmeaULvLD47/w+oyEasoUWg8R4pYZVRfubSb20DuVfrPECmnoq2UPtHtPxNzyteNWugc9 UCvVnH0Kubn2fbzmhKpkNh3PbgbKcKVrRYvOcyntaSsRljpGeNt+FvIU6saaJsRLERnEMFKZ0olk/ 3OBCWuDGIBBUxlQve3FhaO2uVLPBuVU1nxUCov05Y1dt5MjnIAJJKcrNjxMmZS1E4Pg/RbpQXHB9u fuX2X10JIjmEmg==; Original-Received: from acorallo by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s1V6f-0006Dw-Vm; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:48:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Andrea Corallo's message of "Tue, 26 Mar 2024 12:46:09 -0400") X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:318368 Archived-At: Andrea Corallo writes: > Eli Zaretskii writes: > >>> From: Andrea Corallo >>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Kangas , >>> Adam Porter , Stefan Monnier >>> , Arthur Miller >>> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 06:13:26 -0400 >>> >>> Andrea Corallo writes: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Stefan suggested we go for 2 as it's more verbose (and this should >>> discourage users at using it too much). >>> >>> 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 your summary is okay. Very few people responded with opinions >> anyway. >> >>> I think we should make a decision (maintainers) so we can progress on >>> this. >> >> Are you opposed to (2), i.e. >> >> (defun sum (a b) >> (declare (type (function (integer integer) integer))) >> (+ a b)) >> >> If not, I can live with it, and we have 3 people who are okay with it. > > I'm not opposed, I'm fine with it as well. > > Andrea Here we go, I pushed on 'scratch/lisp-func-type-decls' the implementation of what we discussed with a doc entry. Any suggestion or is it okay for master? Thanks Andrea