Re: master 1d9d07fb00e 3/3: (cl--typeof-types): Rework to fix some regressions

[Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org>]

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

>>> I'm not sure I understand.  Is some code relying on the "order" of the
>>> supertypes?  Are these the regression you are mentioning?
>>> Must say I'm surprised supertypes can have an "order" in first place.
>
> Hmm... a lot of what I've been talking about in this thread is about the
> order of parents in `cl--typeof-types`, so yes, the order is important.
> It determines the priority between methods.

I'm asking because I'd personally consider any program relying on of the
parent order just buggy.  IMO parents have just no order by definition.
I'd be curious to see at least one example of such program before calling
it regression or thinking about changing our code in order to support
such order.

>> Also, this commit makes etc/syncdoc-type-hierarchy.el not functional and
>> our doc out of sync (it removes the comment asking to run
>> etc/syncdoc-type-hierarchy.el when changing 'cl--type-hierarchy' as well
>> 🙁).
>
> Duh, thanks for point it out, I'll update the code accordingly.

Thanks no rush, (I myself still have to commit the Makefile magic that
installs syncdoc-type-hierarchy output).

Thanks

  Andrea