Re: (declare (type (function...

[Andrea Corallo]

Marco Antoniotti <marco.antoniotti@unimib.it> writes:

> Dear Andrea
>
> The point is NOT to diverge from Common Lisp.  Such divergence is - IMHO - 
> unwarranted.  Plus, the proposal for the ftype
> declaration also carries over to type declarations, which, again, are useful 
> per se, even if the compiler is "smart
> enough" (ok; this one is for old-timers :) )
>
> Having said that, a provision can be made that a nameless ftype declaration 
> at a function top level refers to the
> "definenda" function.  Again, having to use ftype instead of type is a 
> consequence of ELisp being a 2-lisp.

Dear Marco,

I see your point and share the intent, given your provision 😃 for

(defun foo (x y)
   (declare (ftype (function (integer number) number)))
   (+ x y))

I'm personally okay with the change.

Eli Stefan WDYT?

Thanks

  Andrea