Re: "fall-through" generic function args plus &context

[Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>> But currently cl-generic does not support this notion of "generic
>>> function" quite the way CLOS does (for one our "generic functions"
>>> objects are `defstruct` rather than `defclass` objects, and also
>>> they're not callable so the function cell is yet different (a fairly
>>> standard closure)).
>
>> Thanks for the tips! Using fundamental-mode didn't work (at least not in
>> the emacs-lisp buffer I tested it in),
>
> Hmm... indeed we don't register fundamental-mode as a parent for
> some reason.  I think either (&context (major-mode nil)) or (&context
> (major-mode fundamental-mode)) or both should work.

Perhaps fundamental-mode should work, but I intuitively tried (&context
(major-mode nil)) and (&context (major-mode t)).

Also, so far as I can tell, the correct function signature for the
defgeneric should be (&context (major-mode t)), is that correct? At
least, that didn't raise any errors.

>> but the empty arg-list did, so that's sorted.
>
> That's the better choice anyway (it's marginally more efficient).
>
>> I haven't looked too hard at the specializer code, but if we can already
>> dispatch on defstructs, it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to make
>> something that dispatches on generics?
>
> Yes, it shouldn't be too hard, but it still requires offering the
> possibility to use a "child defstruct" for a given generic function
> (currently, all generic function objects are deftruct of the same type,
> so there's not much dispatch to do).
> IOW implement the :generic-function-class arg to `cl-defgeneric` as well
> as well as exposing the `cl--generic` type (i.e. renaming it) so users
> can define child defstructs.

I get it in theory, but don't understand specializers well enough to
know where to start. One of my projects for the next year is learning
generic functions better, so let's see if I get to it before anyone else
does.

Thanks,
Eric