GNU bug report logs - #76294
`(cl-proclaim (inline foo))` vs `(defsubst foo ...)`

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Subject: bug#76294: closed (Re: bug#76294: `(cl-proclaim (inline foo))` vs
 `(defsubst foo ...)`)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 23:51:02 +0000

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

Your bug report

#76294: `(cl-proclaim (inline foo))` vs `(defsubst foo ...)`

which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 76294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
76294: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=76294
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 76294-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#76294: `(cl-proclaim (inline foo))` vs `(defsubst foo ...)`
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 23:50:29 +0000

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

>> May I ask what is the value proposition of
>>
>>     (defun foo () ...)
>>     (cl-proclaim '(inline foo))
>>
>> over
>>
>>     (defsubst foo () ...)
>>
>> in Emacs Lisp code?
>
> I never dared to touch this because I know I'm biased against those
> thingies.  IOW, I'd be happy to deprecate such usage.  🙂

I probably won't get into deprecating it completely, to be honest.  Not
right now, at any rate.

>> I'm asking because running into this in cl-lib.el made me start to
>> consider the below patch.
>
> Looks good to me.  I suspect the reason behind the current code might be
> that `defsubst` was introduced after cl.el got (and used) `proclaim`.

Makes sense, thanks!

I think it's a good enough argument that the implementation itself
should make sense from an Emacs Lisp perspective, so I installed the
patch.  AFAICT, there is now exactly one use of `cl-proclaim` in all of
Emacs and GNU ELPA.  I didn't check NonGNU ELPA.

If anyone has anything relevant to add for posterity, please do.

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: `(cl-proclaim (inline foo))` vs `(defsubst foo ...)`
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 22:29:47 +0000

[Message part 4 (text/plain, inline)]

Severity: wishlist

May I ask what is the value proposition of

    (defun foo () ...)
    (cl-proclaim '(inline foo))

over

    (defsubst foo () ...)

in Emacs Lisp code?

I assume that it won't be much help when porting code from CL, so I
guess it's just to make ELisp feel more homely to CL programmers?

If it is intended as documentation of cl-proclaim itself, I propose
improving the cl-proclaim documentation instead.  The docstring is
rather on the brief side, shall we say.

I'm asking because running into this in cl-lib.el made me start to
consider the below patch.  It's possible that I'm just the wrong person
to be digging around in cl-lib.el, though...

[0001-Avoid-cl-proclaim.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

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