Re: master 1d9d07fb00e 3/3: (cl--typeof-types): Rework to fix some regressions

[Stefan Monnier]

>>>> I'm not sure I understand.  Is some code relying on the "order" of the
>>>> supertypes?  Are these the regression you are mentioning?
>>>> Must say I'm surprised supertypes can have an "order" in first place.
>> Hmm... a lot of what I've been talking about in this thread is about the
>> order of parents in `cl--typeof-types`, so yes, the order is important.
>> It determines the priority between methods.
> I'm asking because I'd personally consider any program relying on of the
> parent order just buggy.

Such dependencies are rare, indeed.  They're rare enough that I wouldn't
have enough intuition to judge whether they reflect bugs or not.  In any
case CLOS wants it, and I see no reason to do otherwise: the cl-generic
code needs to order the methods according to some criteria, so I prefer
to document that we do it like CLOS than to make it "undefined" (it'd be
extra work to try and detect such undefined cases, on top of that, so
instead we'd get "some arbitrary order" (like we have now) which we'd
have to preserve to avoid breaking backward compatibility: might as well
make this arbitrary order somewhat meaningful 🙂).

>>> Also, this commit makes etc/syncdoc-type-hierarchy.el not functional and
>>> our doc out of sync (it removes the comment asking to run
>>> etc/syncdoc-type-hierarchy.el when changing 'cl--type-hierarchy' as well
>>> 🙁).
>>
>> Duh, thanks for point it out, I'll update the code accordingly.
>
> Thanks no rush,

Done.

> (I myself still have to commit the Makefile magic that
> installs syncdoc-type-hierarchy output).

Haven't touched that, sorry.


        Stefan