Re: feature/type-hierarchy 8a63e50036f 1/5: * Define 'cl--type-hierarchy' and compute 'cl--typeof-types' from it

[Stefan Monnier]

>> It's not complicated either, but I guess what you mean is that the DAG
>> doesn't have enough info, and there I can I agree (which is why in the
>> previous code we generated the DAG from `cl--typeof-types` instead of
>> the reverse 🙂).
>
> My 2 cents.  I see `cl--typeof-types` for the nature of its non trivial
> format and caveats as an internal representation that was layout-ed like
> it is for some specific internal machinery.  I find more convenient how
> we can express the DAG now (and generate `cl--typeof-types`
> automatically from it).

FWIW, the old `cl--typeof-types` representation did not have all the
info necessary to generate the DAG either (at least in theory, I haven't
checked if the blind spots made a difference in practice),

I'm pretty happy with your change, if that's what you were asking :-)


        Stefan