It will be good. :)

On Tue, May 14, 2024, 11:26 Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> >
> >>> From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org>
> >>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Stefan Monnier
> >>>  <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> >>> Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 06:21:21 -0400
> >>>
> >>> 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?
> >>
> >> Fine by me, thanks.
> >
> > Ok, I'll try to take care of this tomorrow.
>
> Gut, should be in with a39a8060124.
>
> Thanks
>
>   Andrea
>
> PS Marco you'll receive a customer satisfaction survey shortly, please
> give us a good score 😀.
>