;;; Define the translation from a type-specifier to a type structure for
;;; some particular type. Syntax is identical to DEFTYPE.
(defmacro !def-type-translator (name arglist &body body)
- (check-type name symbol)
+ (declare (type symbol name))
;; FIXME: Now that the T%CL hack is ancient history and we just use CL
;; instead, we can probably return to using PARSE-DEFMACRO here.
;;
(declare (type ctype type))
`(specifier-type ',(type-specifier type)))
\f
-;;;; utilities
+;;;; miscellany
-;;; sort of like ANY and EVERY, except:
-;;; * We handle two-VALUES predicate functions like SUBTYPEP. (And
-;;; if the result is uncertain, then we return (VALUES NIL NIL),
-;;; just like SUBTYPEP.)
-;;; * THING is just an atom, and we apply OP (an arity-2 function)
-;;; successively to THING and each element of LIST.
-(defun any/type (op thing list)
- (declare (type function op))
- (let ((certain? t))
- (dolist (i list (values nil certain?))
- (multiple-value-bind (sub-value sub-certain?) (funcall op thing i)
- (if sub-certain?
- (when sub-value (return (values t t)))
- (setf certain? nil))))))
-(defun every/type (op thing list)
- (declare (type function op))
- (let ((certain? t))
- (dolist (i list (if certain? (values t t) (values nil nil)))
- (multiple-value-bind (sub-value sub-certain?) (funcall op thing i)
- (if sub-certain?
- (unless sub-value (return (values nil t)))
- (setf certain? nil))))))
-
-;;; Look for a nice intersection for types that intersect only when
-;;; one is a hierarchical subtype of the other.
+;;; Look for nice relationships for types that have nice relationships
+;;; only when one is a hierarchical subtype of the other.
(defun hierarchical-intersection2 (type1 type2)
(multiple-value-bind (subtypep1 win1) (csubtypep type1 type2)
(multiple-value-bind (subtypep2 win2) (csubtypep type2 type1)
(subtypep2 type2)
((and win1 win2) *empty-type*)
(t nil)))))
-
-(defun vanilla-union (type1 type2)
+(defun hierarchical-union2 (type1 type2)
(cond ((csubtypep type1 type2) type2)
((csubtypep type2 type1) type1)
(t nil)))
-;;; Hash two things (types) down to 8 bits. In CMU CL this was an EQ hash, but
-;;; since it now needs to run in vanilla ANSI Common Lisp at cross-compile
-;;; time, it's now based on the CTYPE-HASH-VALUE field instead.
+;;; Hash two things (types) down to 8 bits. In CMU CL this was an EQ
+;;; hash, but since it now needs to run in vanilla ANSI Common Lisp at
+;;; cross-compile time, it's now based on the CTYPE-HASH-VALUE field
+;;; instead.
;;;
;;; FIXME: This was a macro in CMU CL, and is now an INLINE function. Is
;;; it important for it to be INLINE, or could be become an ordinary