GNU bug report logs - #65797
`buffer-match-p` should not use `func-arity`

Previous Next

Full log

Message #91 received at 65797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 65797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in>
Subject: Re: bug#65797: `buffer-match-p` should not use `func-arity`
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 14:05:48 -0400

>> - Deprecate the feature with no replacement (i.e. users will have
>>   to use a (lambda (x y) (foo x)) wrapper to drop the second arg if they
>>   were using the feature).  That's my favorite option at this point.
>
> I would be disappointed to see this path taken, since part of my hope
> with buffer-match-p was that it could be used in project.el as well
> (allowing this to be a thing is one of the reasons I started working on
> Compat).

I don't understand: you just told me you have no examples of places
where single-arg functions are concretely useful.

So, assuming `buffer-match-p` is used in many other things, like
`project.el`, do you have examples where the feature of choosing between
calling sometimes with one arg and sometimes with two would be
useful/handy?

[ BTW, changing the code to use `&rest args` instead of `&optional arg`
  would help for this, right?  ]

>> - Replace it with some alternative (e.g. provide two different syntaxes
>>   for functions, one for functions that expect all args and one for
>>   functions that only take a single arg).
>
> So `(arg1 ,(lambda (x) ...)) and `(arg2 ,(lambda (x y) ...))?

No, I was more thinking of `(pred1 FOO)` vs `(pred FOO)` or using just
`FOO` for those functions which take all the arguments and `[FOO]` for
those functions which only accept a single argument, or any other
suitable "annotation".
Or you could use an OClosure which carries some explicit user-provided
arity info with it.

>> - Live with the occasional breakage and bug reports like the current one.
> The issue here was related to advising a function.  And you are saying
> there is no way around this, not even by annotating the function symbol
> with the initial arity before it is advised.

No, we can fix this case with some ad-hoc hack.
But we can't fix every case once and for all, so the hack ends up being
very costly compared to its benefit.

The general rule is that you should never look at a function to decide
how to call it (more generally, you should never look at a function
beyond testing `functionp` or `commandp` (other than for debugging and
the like), you should only call it).


        Stefan

Previous Next

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