[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Improve detection of local function calls in methods
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Improve detection of local function calls in methods |
Date: |
Thu, 02 Sep 2021 14:34:28 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
> I don't know if all this is appropriate style; I provide patches this
> way in the hope it's acceptable.
Yes, that's very nice, thank you.
> @@ -377,24 +377,51 @@ defun cl--generic-lambda (args body)
> ;; destructuring args, `declare' and whatnot).
> (pcase (macroexpand fun macroenv)
> (`#'(lambda ,args . ,body)
> - (let* ((parsed-body (macroexp-parse-body body))
> + (let* ((parsed-body (macroexp-parse-body body)) uses-cnm
> (cnm (make-symbol "cl--cnm"))
> (nmp (make-symbol "cl--nmp"))
> - (nbody (macroexpand-all
> - `(cl-flet ((cl-call-next-method ,cnm)
> - (cl-next-method-p ,nmp))
> - ,@(cdr parsed-body))
> - macroenv))
> - ;; FIXME: Rather than `grep' after the fact, the
> - ;; macroexpansion should directly set some flag when cnm
> - ;; is used.
> + (nbody
> + ;; We duplicate the code from `cl-flet' augmenting it
> + ;; with `cl-pushnew' forms to record the presence of
> + ;; `cl-call-next-method', `cl-next-method-p'.
> + ;; It would be better to avoid code duplication
> + ;; but it's not clear how to do that reasonably enough.
> + (let ((newenv
> + (cons `(cl-call-next-method
> + .
> + ,(lambda (&rest args)
> + (cl-pushnew cnm uses-cnm :test #'eq)
> + (if (eq (car args) cl--labels-magic)
> + (list cl--labels-magic cnm)
> + `(funcall ,cnm ,@args))))
> + (cons `(cl-next-method-p
> + .
> + ,(lambda (&rest args)
> + (cl-pushnew nmp uses-cnm :test #'eq)
> + (if (eq (car args) cl--labels-magic)
> + (list cl--labels-magic nmp)
> + `(funcall ,nmp ,@args))))
> + macroenv))))
> + (macroexpand-all
> + `(progn ,@(cdr parsed-body))
> + ;; Don't override lexical-let's macro-expander
> + (if (assq 'function newenv) newenv
> + (cons (cons 'function
> + (lambda (f)
> + (cl-case f
> + (cl-call-next-method
> + (cl-pushnew cnm uses-cnm :test #'eq))
> + (cl-next-method-p
> + (cl-pushnew nmp uses-cnm :test #'eq)))
> + (cl--labels-convert f)))
> + newenv)))))
Hmm... the reason why I didn't do that (when I wrote the comment
instead), is that I find this duplication ugly.
I think "the right way" would be for the `cl-flet` implementation to use
a `cl--expand-flet` function returning which functions are used
and which aren't.
Then we could use it here without such duplication, *and* we could use
it in `cl-flet` to emit warnings about unused functions.
WDYT?
Stefan
- Re: [PATCH] Improve detection of local function calls in methods,
Stefan Monnier <=