[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Improve detection of local function calls in methods
From: |
akater |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Improve detection of local function calls in methods |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Sep 2021 06:25:57 +0000 |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
> I think "the right way" would be for the `cl-flet` implementation to use
> a `cl--expand-flet` function returning which functions are used
> and which aren't.
>
> Then we could use it here without such duplication, *and* we could use
> it in `cl-flet` to emit warnings about unused functions.
>
> WDYT?
I agree. I think the root of the problem is, ~cl-flet~ is generally not
implemented well. Feels like it was implemented in a rush.
- (func exp) is non-standard and ad-hoc. Do you happen to remember,
maybe it was invented solely for ~cl--generic-lambda~?
- (func exp) definition form is described incorrectly in the docstring:
it should be (FUNCTION-NAME SYMBOL) and so on; this also affects
cl-macrolet docstring which claims it's “like cl-flet” but in fact
it's not as it doesn't support this definition form
- ~cl-flet~ with invalid function names should error but it doesn't
I implemented ~cl--expand-flet~ but I felt simply returning a list of
used symbols would be just another ad-hoc addition so I decided to
instead add an interface to execute arbitrary code during
macroexpansion. It took longer than I expected but I'm satisfied with
the result. I'll open a standalone bug (my implementation happens to
fix some outstanding issues); when changes are (hopefully) merged, we'll
continue on with this one.
Quick reference: if all goes well, the definition of
~cl--generic-lambda~ is to become
#+begin_example emacs-lisp
..
(let* ((parsed-body (macroexp-parse-body body)) uses-cnm
(cnm (make-symbol "cl--cnm"))
(nmp (make-symbol "cl--nmp"))
(nbody (cl--expand-flet macroenv (cdr parsed-body)
(cl-call-next-method (push cnm uses-cnm) cnm)
(cl-next-method-p (push nmp uses-cnm) nmp)))
;; FIXME: Optimize the case where call-next-method is
;; only called with explicit arguments.
)
..)
#+end_example
This involves a “macro” version of expand-flet; we'll see whether it's
worth keeping alongside the corresponding function.
If you can, please confirm my suspicion that (FUNC EXP) definitions were
indeed invented solely for ~cl--generic-lambda~.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature