freenode/#clasp - IRC Chatlog

13:23:42 Shinmera- ** NICK Shinmera

13:37:57 Bike going to merge my array stuff into dev once i double check it.

13:39:08 beach Progress! I can convert a CST corresponding to (function (lambda (x) x)) to an AST. Now working on (function (lambda (x) (declare (special x)) x)).

13:39:21 beach This is the toughest part of CST-to-AST.

13:39:28 drmeister Excellent!

13:39:30 drmeister Hello

13:39:52 beach ... i.e. processing the lambda list and taking declarations into account.

13:39:59 Bike the toughest part is declaration parsing and... right. yeah, that makes sense

13:42:24 beach Bike: At some later point I have a question for you about alien-declarations. You carefully pass them to the canonicalizer, and then they are ignored by it. I would think either not pass them at all, or use them to signal an error if some unknown declaration specifier is passed.

13:42:46 Bike I think I messed that up.

13:43:07 Bike there was some code in cleavir-env that used an incorrect declaration by accident, and sbcl caught it but not cleavir.

13:43:17 Bike so, it should signal an error

13:43:51 beach OK. That's not what it is doing right now.

13:45:21 Bike oh, right now it assumes everything is a type... right.

13:45:43 beach Ah, yes, I see.

13:45:54 beach But we already added TYPE if it is a type, right?

13:46:15 beach And to do that, we consult the alien declarations. Or we should.

13:46:29 Bike no, this is in the canonicalizer, this is what adds type

13:46:42 Bike but it doesn't really have a way to know that something is a type

13:47:14 beach If it is not in DECLARATIONS and not a standard one, it is assumed to be a type.

13:47:30 Bike i think that's what it's doing now.

13:47:56 Bike in https://github.com/robert-strandh/SICL/blob/master/Code/Cleavir/Code-utilities/declarations.lisp#L71-L79 i mean.

13:47:59 beach OK, I thought that the TYPE symbol had already been added. I must have been wrong about that.

13:48:09 beach Sorry for the confusion.

13:48:43 Bike still, i think a warning (or an error, which the implementation downgrades to a warning) would be preferable

13:49:18 beach We could consult the environment. It should have all the defined type names.

13:49:49 beach It is implementation-specific stuff, but I think there is a protocol function for it, no?

13:50:11 Bike I don't think there is, actually. there's typexpand and i think that's it.

13:50:17 Bike type-expand

13:51:19 beach OK, better add such a thing then. Say type-function, to be analogous to macro-function. I'll give it some thought.

13:51:35 beach I need to look at what form such a declaration may take. Does it have to be a symbol?

13:52:29 beach Rhetorical question, of course. I'll look myself.

13:53:07 Bike type-function wouldn't be quite enough, unless you also want to hardcode CL types that don't necessarily expand into anything, and disallow implementation types that aren't also classes

13:53:28 beach Yeah, I figured it was a bit more complicated.

13:54:45 beach It has to be a symbol.

13:55:07 beach So, for any symbol, we need to know whether it is defined as a type.

13:56:28 Bike implementations allow (declare ((array character) foo)) kind of stuff.

13:56:41 beach Wow.

13:56:49 beach I don't think that's allowed.

13:57:26 Bike the glossary entry for "declaration identifier" seems to imply it's not

13:57:35 Bike well, state, not imply

13:57:36 beach Exactly.

13:57:49 beach It has to be a symbol.

13:58:35 beach Well, implementations that allow that can not use Cleavir then, at least not to compile code with non-conforming type declarations.

13:59:09 beach In other words, I am not planning to take that possibility into account. We have enough implementation-specific stuff as it is.

14:00:41 Bike what i'd be worried about is libraries that do that

14:01:20 beach I'll let you do the worrying. I have plenty as it is.

14:01:45 Bike alright

14:35:43 beach I mean, it would be perfectly valid to write a bug report to the maintainer of such a library, asking him or her to add the word TYPE.

14:39:18 Shinmera Given that I think (declare (some-type foo)) is bad style anyway, I think being strict is the right thing to do.

14:39:33 beach I totally agree.

14:39:49 beach I might remove that possibility in WSCL. :)

14:43:34 Bike you'd get compatibility pushback. i mean, i agree too, but there's a lot of code with declare fixnum

14:43:40 Bike and such

14:44:17 beach I know, yes. :(

15:21:46 beach Bike: You created cleavir-primop:call-with-variable-bound, right?

15:22:01 Bike i don't think i did.

15:22:06 beach Oh, OK.

15:22:44 beach I am confused as to why it is a special operator in my environment.

15:22:45 Bike the idea of doing special variable bindings by calling a function was in there before i touched cleavir. I did however go back and change it so that it doesn't have to be a function call

15:22:56 beach It should just be a function, I would think.

15:23:28 Bike The way it was before, the generate-ast code for special variable bindings would directly generate a function call AST, to the fdefinition of call-with-variable-bound

15:23:42 Bike so that would bypass the environment lookup of what kind of operator call-with-variable-bound is

15:24:06 Bike So if you just have something like "every cleavir-primop symbol is a special operator" you might not have noticed it before?

15:24:16 beach That might be it.

15:24:31 beach Thanks.

16:00:15 beach *sigh*

16:00:31 beach Calling cleavir-env:function-info returns a special-operator-info

16:00:49 beach calling sicl-env:fdefinition returns a function.

16:06:48 Bike do you set up the cleavir and sicl environments separately? i had the impression that you did.

16:07:18 beach Possibly. I am too tired after a long day of work to think clearly. I'll deal with it tomorrow.