From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: declare function/macro private Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2021 22:54:41 -0400 Message-ID: References: <0278C47F-42CE-45C4-B789-83C57DF1A191@bydasein.com> <7D467006-748F-4316-939E-C82D62D80221@bydasein.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24453"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Paul W. Rankin" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 07 04:55:32 2021 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 1lq5QK-00069s-Ma for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 04:55:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49760 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lq5QJ-0003I8-FO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2021 22:55:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35894) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lq5Pf-0002XM-UO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2021 22:54:51 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:10057) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lq5Pc-000182-HQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2021 22:54:50 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 64B50806A5; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 22:54:44 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C1D2180497; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 22:54:42 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1623034482; bh=M7canBCGtOZMIdeKJj63SGNBT60/TjfKz62FLFttEvM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=C5z7uNJQZ2MxsuVJyTbtCgoFrPDQ+u91flOna5yXIZYKNsy0szGkWTatpa0x/nnAT hy3PdXCJYBdLlt9nuBMfNsMaw3aLgEB/+9gVCOA8H/1qAt3mfQhrkomcA2gSQKr12z z1PbKhmDeB+4gze7SfF3zLKovc6N+W/0Lan4wNCFYKeWepkGTZtQPEUvH+9673cEKk qSpLksxTzxPyxbOXRcjitiluRQUEWDDezZGp66dnmqoO+sjhQA3QOLIrpPkAIvEMS9 nlCikHp09RHn7bLgwar9lb4t627z7HMx52h5mNhSoI7mx1ezQnaRuOO8gKVVNgiYbj U6ihYdQrF1G+Q== Original-Received: from alfajor (69-196-163-239.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.163.239]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89AFE120DF4; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 22:54:42 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <7D467006-748F-4316-939E-C82D62D80221@bydasein.com> (Paul W. Rankin's message of "Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:59:16 +1000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:270515 Archived-At: >>> Of course there's already the convention of prefix--my-private-function, but >> What would be the difference between this convention and your proposed declaration? > Stefan, you must have missed my followup reply: No, I'm still wondering what it is you find to be different. My current guess is that you fear that "--" has currently been used carelessly and imposing a more "structured" meaning to it after the fact will hence introduce problems, whereas your declaration would come right away with an associated "precise" meaning. If so, I agree to some extent, but: - As mentioned your declaration would suffer from the difficulty of clarifying "internal to what" since sometimes a function is internal to a file, sometimes to a multifile package and sometimes to a subset of a file. Of course, that can be solved by adding an extra argument to your annotation, but: - your annotation is placed on those functions that are internal, which (as a coder) are those functions which I'd rather not burden with too much extra annotations, otherwise I'll just not bother declaring them as internal (which is what we had before the "--" convention). - As long as the effect is just a few font-lock-warning faces here and there, I think the problem is harmless enough (and it does point to real misfeatures in many cases, so it would help improve the code). > I think requiring a program to explicitly declare something as internal will > cause less trouble than adding a kind of compiler heuristic for "--" symbol > names because there are likely plenty of those where people have used the > name with the perspective that it's just a hint and doesn't actually do > anything. e.g. `imenu--index-alist' is supposedly internal but any elisp > program hooking into Imenu needs to use this variable. Yes, currently it's a bit of a wild west because the "--" has no effect, but maybe it's time to impose some order on this, indeed. > Also I just dislike computer heuristics. It's not a heuristic. >>> my thinking here is that a program could declare a function/macro as >>> private, then the compiler could signal a warning/error if that function >>> appeared in a library outside the library it was defined and >>> declared private. >> We don't have a definition for "library", sadly. > M-x find library says otherwise. But the definition of a "library" is > inconsequential. Using "file" might be more helpful. But "file" is the wrong granularity for many Gnus-internal definitions (and same applies to all multifile packages). So what would use for those if your declaration are only for file-local internal definitions? Stefan