[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Some improvements for cl-flet
From: |
akater |
Subject: |
Some improvements for cl-flet |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Sep 2021 12:51:28 +0000 |
I've implemented some fixes for ~cl-flet~ necessary to address an issue
with ~cl-generic~ but also improving ~cl-flet~ proper. Before I post
the patch, I'd like to clarify one issue.
~cl-flet~'s ~(func exp)~ syntax, as described and implemented, is
incompatible with ~flet~ syntax as specified in Common Lisp. Namely,
~(func exp)~ syntax does not allow to distinguish between a form ~exp~
returning a function and an arglist ~exp~ for a function ~func~ that
always returns ~nil~.
Consider the following valid (but stylistically poor) Common Lisp code:
#+begin_src lisp :wrap example lisp
(flet ((f #'g))
(f t t))
#+end_src
#+RESULTS:
#+begin_example lisp
NIL
#+end_example
If I understand the purpose of ~cl-lib~ correctly, corresponding
~cl-flet~ form should return ~nil~ as well. However, it errors:
#+begin_src emacs-lisp :results code :wrap example emacs-lisp
(condition-case err (cl-flet ((f #'g))
(f t t))
(t err))
#+end_src
#+RESULTS:
#+begin_example emacs-lisp
(void-function g)
#+end_example
In case it's not clear what's going on: the previous example is
equivalent to the following one, only with ~function~, ~g~ replaced with
~x~, ~y~ correspondingly:
#+begin_src lisp :wrap example lisp
(flet ((f (x y)))
(f t t))
#+end_src
#+RESULTS:
#+begin_example lisp
NIL
#+end_example
but due to ~(func exp)~ syntax, ~(x y)~ is presumed to be a form meant
to return a function, rather than an arglist, and so
#+begin_src emacs-lisp :results code :wrap example emacs-lisp
(condition-case err (cl-flet ((f (x y)))
(f t t))
(t err))
#+end_src
#+RESULTS:
#+begin_example emacs-lisp
(void-function x)
#+end_example
The syntax of ~flet~ could only be compatible with ~cl-flet~'s ~(func
exp)~ syntax when ~exp~ is presumed to be a non-list. For example,
~exp~ could be a symbol.
The following expression could also be unambiguously interpreted in
style of ~(func exp)~ because ~nil~ is not a valid function argument:
#+begin_src emacs-lisp :results code :wrap example emacs-lisp
(cl-flet ((f (lambda nil nil)))
(f))
#+end_src
#+RESULTS:
#+begin_example emacs-lisp
nil
#+end_example
However I don't think it's worth it to use complicated rules to
distinguish such cases. ~flet~ just has its own syntax, incompatible
with the (Scheme-inspired, likely) idea of binding a function to a
variable. Such complications would keep ~cl-flet~ unfit for use in
macroexpanded (and otherwise generated) code. Last but not least,
~(flet ((f (lambda nil nil))) (f))~, etc., is not a valid Common Lisp
code.
Note also that the following is valid (and stylistically fine) Common
Lisp code:
#+begin_src lisp :wrap example lisp
(flet ((f ()))
(f))
#+end_src
#+RESULTS:
#+begin_example lisp
NIL
#+end_example
However, evaluating corresponding ~cl-flet~ form errors:
#+begin_src emacs-lisp :results code :wrap example emacs-lisp
(condition-case err (cl-flet ((f ()))
(f))
(t err))
#+end_src
#+RESULTS:
#+begin_example emacs-lisp
(void-function nil)
#+end_example
Finally, note that (an equivalent) ~(func exp)~ syntax could not be
adopted by at all by ~cl-macrolet~, as macrolet forms support
destructuring lambda lists. For example, the following is a valid (but
stylistically poor) Common Lisp code:
#+begin_src lisp :wrap example lisp
(macrolet ((f (lambda () 'x)))
(f t nil (t t)))
#+end_src
#+RESULTS:
#+begin_example lisp
NIL
#+end_example
Given all this, I think ~(func exp)~ should be dropped from ~cl-flet~.
My patch (already discussed with Stefan Monnier to some extent)
introduces function ~cl--expand-flet~ which retains the functionality
currently provided by ~(func exp)~, in an unambiguous way. I suggest to
move it there, away from ~cl-flet~.
Do you agree?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature