freenode/#sicl - IRC Chatlog

2:57:16 beach Good morning everyone!

2:58:01 no-defun-allowed Good morning beach!

4:25:01 ck_ beach: [no action needed on your part] I did most of what we discussed about the floating printer (good thing too, because it revealed a bug in the clhs-conforming code). I didn't touch the variable names, but put in some documentation strings instead. If you ever use it, I'd like to know :)

4:25:59 beach Great! I will definitely use it as part of the printer in SICL.

4:26:27 beach But it won't be right away, because I don't need floats during bootstrapping.

4:26:35 ck_ of course

4:26:56 beach When do you start your new job?

4:27:04 ck_ next wednesday

4:27:29 beach OK.

4:27:31 ck_ I won't vanish here completely, but I'll be active much less probably

4:27:42 beach I fully understand.

4:29:13 ck_ beach: so like I told the mcclim people, I'd like to say thanks to you as well. Not everyone is so welcoming.

4:29:52 beach Oh, sure.

4:30:11 beach As far as I can tell, you have contributed quite a lot.

4:31:40 ck_ time will tell if anything is useful

4:32:43 beach Indeed, but I have no doubts.

4:33:20 ck_ Hey, thanks. A glimmer of optimism :)

4:33:46 ck_ You said, if I recall, in #lisp that "by end of year" is the current planning for an executable sicl?

4:33:49 ck_ like a christmas present

4:34:23 beach Yes, I just wanted enough time, but still push myself a bit. And I needed a well defined date.

4:34:29 beach Nothing magic.

4:35:05 ck_ Looking forward to it

4:35:22 beach Me too. :)

6:52:36 beach I am going to be a bit busy with other stuff today. I'll be here sporadically.

8:07:24 heisig Shinmera: You are a legend!

8:07:31 heisig Hello everyone!

8:07:45 Shinmera morning.

8:09:20 shka__ heisig: hi!

8:09:23 shka__ Shinmera: good day

8:14:09 no-defun-allowed Morning heisig and Shinmera

9:06:32 beach Somewhere, very likely programmatically generated, I have a (DECLARE (DECLARE...)) somewhere.

9:07:13 beach Before CST was fixed by Bike, it ignored this declaration, because it didn't recognize the type of declaration.

9:07:22 beach But now, it makes the boot procedure fail.

9:07:38 beach I suspect PARSE-MACRO, and I am going to investigate.

9:07:54 beach But, like I said, I'll be busy with other stuff today.

11:31:52 scymtym this seems suspicious assuming DECLARATION-CSTS actually holds CSTs: https://github.com/robert-strandh/SICL/blob/master/Code/Cleavir2/CST-to-AST/convert-let-and-letstar.lisp#L106

11:32:05 scymtym and line 110

12:14:02 beach Yes, I think you found it.

12:14:17 beach It was definitely related to LET and LET*.

12:14:30 beach Thanks for doing that!

12:15:35 beach I have been running around all day, so now I am going to take a break.

12:15:46 beach I'll try to attack this problem after the break.

12:29:35 scymtym beach: sure, i thought this was a good opportunity to put the s-expression pattern matcher to work

13:17:24 beach Oh, is that how you found it? What pattern did you use?

13:21:09 Bike i should probably change cst to signal an error on declare declare, since it's definitely illegal

13:21:18 Bike i don't know if sicl uses the same code for proclaim, though

13:21:33 beach It is not DECLARATION.

13:21:44 Bike oh. right.

13:21:49 Bike well that should signal an error, still

13:21:53 beach It is a simple mistake of piling a DECLARE on top of a DECLARE.

13:22:01 beach It kind of is. :)

13:22:18 Bike but not one that gives you a source location?

13:22:18 beach But I am confused.

13:22:29 beach No.

13:22:39 beach The same code is both in Cleavir and Cleavir2.

13:22:53 beach How can Clasp not detect it?

13:24:24 beach I guess there must be a LET* with declarations.

13:24:37 Bike Well, what error are you getting? I would expect CST to treat the DECLARE as a type declaration

13:24:42 Bike and clasp mostly ignores those at the moment

13:25:03 beach I see.

13:25:15 beach The error I get is in Trucler, so that must be the difference.

13:30:06 Bike What's the error?

13:33:12 beach It is trying to combine type declarations, one of which (type (declare (ignore)))

13:33:58 beach So (declare (declare (ignore))) has been transformed into (declare (type (declare (ignore))))

13:34:01 beach [from memory]

13:34:33 Bike does it not combine type declarations just by putting AND in front of them?

13:36:44 beach OK, let me restore the code so that I can give you a better answer...

13:40:27 beach TRUCLER:ADD-VARIABLE-TYPE is called...

13:40:58 beach With SYMBOL being (IGNORE), i.e. not a symbol.

13:41:19 beach And TYPE being DECLARE.

13:41:58 beach So it asks the environment for a description of the "symbol" (IGNORE).

13:42:12 beach The environment returns NIL as a description.

13:43:00 beach Then it calls MERGE-TYPE with the client, with the description (i.e. NIL) and the type (i.e. DECLARE).

13:43:07 Bike Shouldn't (declare (ignore)) be treated as a type, and then there are no variables?

13:43:12 Bike Maybe I messed up canonicalization

13:44:00 beach MERGE-TYPE specializes on the description, so the default method is called, which calls error.

13:44:29 beach Correct, but it is given (declare (declare (ignore)))

13:44:42 beach Which is a bug in CST-to-AST when it processes LET* it seems.

13:44:49 Bike ohh.

13:45:01 Bike so it actually ends up as (type declare (ignore)), i see

13:45:07 beach So the inner DECLARE is taken to be a type.

13:45:13 beach Yes.

13:45:23 Bike alright, that's all i was concerned about

13:49:47 beach OK, so we have an ordinary list of CSTs, each one being a CST version of (declare ...).

13:50:09 beach And we have a RESULT, which is body form.

13:50:58 beach Er no, RESULT is not a body form. Hold on...

13:51:42 beach I take that back. :) I think it is.

13:52:57 beach So if there are no declarations, we build (let <bindings> RESULT).

13:53:40 beach But if there are declarations, we build (let <bindings> (declare (declare ...) (declare...)) RESULT) instead.

13:54:01 beach So we are inserting an extra DECLARE.

13:54:30 beach We should append the declarations and (list RESULT).

13:54:47 beach But we don't have a CST:APPEND. At least I don't think so.

13:56:48 Bike wouldn't doing (cons (cons 'declare (mapcar #'rest declarations)) result) work too? so (declare x) (declare y) becomes (declare x y)

13:57:09 Bike i mean with 'declare actually being a cst

13:58:07 beach That could work.