GNU bug report logs - #23486
25.0.93; Modules: features missing from make_function

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 23486 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com>
To: npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net
Cc: 23486 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#23486: 25.0.93; Modules: features missing from make_function
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:02:08 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

<npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net> schrieb am So., 11. Sep. 2016 um 16:56 Uhr:

> Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> > emacs_env::make_function lacks the following features supported by
> > `defun':
> >
> > 1. Functions with both optional and rest arguments.
> > 2. Specification of parameter names.
> > 3. Integration with `help-function-arglist'.
> > 4. Specification of interactive forms.
> > 5. Specification of declare forms.
> > 6. Docstrings containing null or non-Unicode characters.
> >
> > (6) is probably rather unimportant.  (5) is probably not implementable
> > (would require wrapping `defun', not `lambda').  (1)–(4) are more severe
> > and quite limit the usefulness of make_function right now; for a
> > truly generic `defun'-like construct one currently has to eval a `defun'
> > form wrapping another function.
>
> Shouldn't modules be providing a DEFUN-like construct instead?  That is,
> I thought the idea of modules was to enable writing primitive
> subroutines.
>

I don't know what the idea of modules originally was. However, defun and
DEFUN are composite operations: They create a function object (lambda) and
provide an alias for it. Therefore they can't replace the more primitive
operations. The current module interface design chooses to provide the
primitive operation to make a function object and have the caller call
defalias. That's a reasonable choice.


>
> >
> > To solve (1)–(3), I'd propose replacing the "arity" arguments with a
> > true arglist specification.  This could either be at the C level, e.g.
> >
> >     ptrdiff_t num_mandatory_args, char** mandatory_arg_names,
> >     ptrdiff_t num_optional_args, char** optional_arg_names,
> >     char* rest_arg_name
> >
> > or by requiring to pass a Lisp argument list.
> >
> > To solve (4) I'd propose to pass another value for the interactive form,
> > probably as emacs_value* (to support non-interactive functions).
> >
> > As an alternative, if people feel this would require too many
> > parameters, I'd propose reverting the change that adds the documentation
> > string.  A docstring without arglist is not very useful.  We could also
> > remove the arity parameters and have the C function check the arity
> > itself.
>
> I think adding "(fn ARG1 ARG2...)" to the docstring would solve (1)-(3).
>

That doesn't work, because Emacs ignores this syntax when the arguments are
provided explicitly, and since a module function is just a (lambda (&rest
args) ...) under the hood, the arglist is always just (&rest args).


> What's lacking is a way to add this automagically like DEFUN does.  And
> getting the parameters in C variables like DEFUN would also be nice.
>

Maybe, but not for the module interface. The module interface explicitly
only provides basic primitives, without macro magic or high-level
functions. High-level functionality built on top of the primitives is out
of scope.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.