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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #40 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: bug#66615: 30.0.50; Inconsistent 'number-or-marker' type
 definition in the cl- machinery
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2023 03:03:19 -0400

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

>> (null boolean symbol list sequence atom) is not a linearization of the
>> DAG,
>
> AFAIK it is.  A linearization can be "depth first" or "breadth" first or
> any mix of it.  It's basically any total order compatible with the
> partial order imposed by the DAG.
>
>> is just (TYPE . SUPERTYPES) where SUPERTYPES have no specific
>> order.  Am I wrong?
>
> The order is from most specific to least specific.  For types which are
> "incomparable", the choice is a judgment call.  The above ordering seems
> acceptable to me since `atom` is arguably a larger type than `sequence`,
> but
>
>     (null boolean symbol atom list sequence)
>
> is acceptable as well.
>
> This said, in general we'd like to avoid situations where type T1
> appears before type T2 in one case and after it in another (it may not
> always be avoidable, sadly).  And `atom` appears after `sequence` in
> cases like `vector` and `string`, so I think we should prefer
>
>     (null boolean symbol list sequence atom)
>
> over
>
>     (null boolean symbol atom list sequence)
>
>> How can current code (say dispatch on builtin types) work if we can't
>> infer if 'sequence' is higher or lower in the hierarchy respect
>> to 'list'?
>
> The linearization is specific to a given type, so we use the ordering
> provided by `cl--typeof-types` and we never care to know the full DAG.
>
> [ BTW, we should be able to infer that `list` is lower because every
>   time it appears in `cl--typeof-types` it is always followed by
>   `sequence`.  ]
>
>> I think the original idea (as expressed by the doc) of having "the list
>> of its supertypes from the most specific to least specific" works for
>> reconstructing the DAG if we have one entry per path to the top, say:
>>
>> (null boolean symbol atom)
>> (null list sequence)
>> (cons list sequence)
>
> Indeed.  But then it doesn't say how to make this into a total order
> when `cl-defmethod` needs to decide which method should come first.
>
> IOW, there is supposedly a DAG, but until now we've never actually
> needed the DAG itself, instead we've needed only a linearization of the
> ancestors of the leaves of that DAG, which is what
> `cl--typeof-types` stores.
>
> If you need the DAG, then maybe we need to store more info (tho I still
> suspect we should be able to extract that info from `cl--typeof-types`).

Yep, I think I'll go for adding the DAG somewhere else, extratcting it
from `cl--typeof-types` doesn't look trivial at all (if even possible)
and its definition is at this point kind of weak IMO for that.

Thanks

  Andrea

Previous Next

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