--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
30.0.50; Should `subr-primitive-p` apply to special-forms? |
|
Date: |
Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:30:01 -0400 |
Package: Emacs
Version: 30.0.50
Currently (subr-primitive-p (symbol-function 'if)) returns t.
Its docstring disagrees:
Return t if OBJECT is a built-in primitive function.
because `if` is indeed a "built-in primitive" but not a "function" (you
can't `funcall` it and it is rejected by `functionp`: it's a special
form instead).
For ELisp's type hierarchy/DAG we need a type for "a built-in primitive
which is also a function". Originally, based on the docstring,
I thought I could use `subr-primitive`.
But it turns out that the code doesn't quite match the docstring.
I can see two ways to fix that:
- Introduce a new type, says `subr-function(-p)` which returns non-nil
if and only if the argument is a built-in primitive *and* a function.
- Change the implementation of `subr-primitive-p` to match its docstring.
The patch below does the second (including changing the only place
I found that wants the current semantics.
Comments? Objections?
Stefan
diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/find-func.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/find-func.el
index 411602ef166..3458ace1c08 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/find-func.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/find-func.el
@@ -552,7 +552,7 @@ find-function-library
(cons function
(cond
((autoloadp def) (nth 1 def))
- ((subr-primitive-p def)
+ ((or (subr-primitive-p def) (special-form-p def))
(if lisp-only
(error "%s is a built-in function" function))
(help-C-file-name def 'subr))
diff --git a/lisp/subr.el b/lisp/subr.el
index 38a3f6edb34..f403369f534 100644
--- a/lisp/subr.el
+++ b/lisp/subr.el
@@ -315,7 +315,8 @@ subr-primitive-p
"Return t if OBJECT is a built-in primitive function."
(declare (side-effect-free error-free))
(and (subrp object)
- (not (subr-native-elisp-p object))))
+ (not (or (subr-native-elisp-p object)
+ (special-form-p object)))))
(defsubst xor (cond1 cond2)
"Return the boolean exclusive-or of COND1 and COND2.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#69832: 30.0.50; Should `subr-primitive-p` apply to special-forms? |
|
Date: |
Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:03:59 -0400 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
> Well, you asked for opinions, and here you have mine. I stand by it.
Fair enough. I'll go with a new `primitive-function-p`, then.
I'll include it in the `cl-type-of` patch(es).
Stefan
--- End Message ---