GNU bug report logs - #66615
30.0.50; Inconsistent 'number-or-marker' type definition in the cl- machinery

Previous Next

Full log

Message #11 received at 66615 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>,
 66615 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 30.0.50; Inconsistent 'number-or-marker' type definition in the
 cl- machinery
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 04:56:42 -0400

[re-replaying as for some reason our responses didn't reach the list]

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

>> My question is, why do we consider 'number-or-marker' in the first place
>> a type if we support the or syntax in `cl-typep' like
>> (cl-typep 3 '(or marker number)) ?
>
> I'm not sure I can give a good answer in general, but I can tell you
> some reasons that explain some of what we see:
>
> - There is a `number-or-marker-p` primitive and `cl-typep` doesn't know
>   how to use it for `(or number marker)`.

Well we could just remove 'number-or-marker-p' 😃

> - method specializers (currently) can't be `(or number marker)` but can be
>   `number-or-marker`.

Okay this is more difficult to fix... :/

>> I'd like to fix this inconsistency in order to progress with my
>> development, originally I worked out the attached patch but I now
>> suspect that (unless there's a specific reason) we should just remove
>> 'number-or-marker' as a type entirely instead.
>
> I'd lean towards keeping it :-)

I see your point, actually my main drive is to make the situation more
coherent so I'm unblocked in the first place, just the method
specializer functionality is a blocker for removing 'number-or-marker'.

I think adding 'number-or-marker' where missing is probably the best
solution for now.

Thanks

  Andrea

Previous Next

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