GNU bug report logs - #69739
30.0.50; `type-of` is not precise enough

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: acorallo <at> gnu.org, basil <at> contovou.net, 69739 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#69739: 30.0.50; `type-of` is not precise enough
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:56:58 +0200

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: basil <at> contovou.net,  acorallo <at> gnu.org,  69739 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:29:10 -0400
> 
> > Yes, I think we should document it near type-of, as the explanation
> > when and why to prefer cl-type-of is quite simple and easily
> > understandable.
> 
> OK, here's a new (set of) patches (also available in the
> `scratch/object-type` branch).  I added the doc as well as a test
> (which pointed to the `subr-primitive-p` problem), and an additional
> hunk which fixes the `subr-primitive-p`.

Thanks, a few nits below.

> +@defun cl-type-of object
> +This function returns a symbol naming @emph{the} type of
> +@var{object}.  It usually behaves like @code{type-of}, except
> +that it guarantees to return the most precise type possible, which also
> +implies that the specific type it returns may change depending on the
> +Emacs version.  For this reason, as a rule you should never compare its
> +return value against some fixed set of types.
> +
> +@example
> +(object-type 1)
> +     @result{} fixnum
> +@group
> +(object-type 'nil)
> +     @result{} null
> +(object-type (record 'foo))
> +     @result{} foo

"object-type"?

>  DEFUN ("type-of", Ftype_of, Stype_of, 1, 1, 0,
>         doc: /* Return a symbol representing the type of OBJECT.
>  The symbol returned names the object's basic type;
> -for example, (type-of 1) returns `integer'.  */)
> +for example, (type-of 1) returns `integer'.
> +Contrary to `cl-type-of' the returned type is not always the most
                          ^^
I think we want a comma there.
> +DEFUN ("cl-type-of", Fcl_type_of, Scl_type_of, 1, 1, 0,
> +       doc: /* Return a symbol representing the type of OBJECT.
> +The symbol returned names the most specific possible type of the object.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think "The returned symbol" is better here, as it prevents a
possible confusion (whether "returned" alludes to "symbol" or to
"names").

> +for example, (object-type nil) returns `null'.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
"object-type"?

>  (defsubst subr-primitive-p (object)
> -  "Return t if OBJECT is a built-in primitive function."
> +  "Return t if OBJECT is a built-in primitive written in C."
>    (declare (side-effect-free error-free))
>    (and (subrp object)
>         (not (subr-native-elisp-p object))))
>  
> +(defsubst primitive-function-p (object)
> +  "Return t if OBJECT is a built-in primitive function."
> +  (declare (side-effect-free error-free))
> +  (and (subrp object)
> +       (not (or (subr-native-elisp-p object)
> +                (eq (cdr (subr-arity object)) 'unevalled)))))

Should these doc strings mention the special case of special form,
which each one of them treats differently?

Previous Next

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