Evan Hanson <ev...@foldling.org> writes:
> Hi megane, happy holidays! Happy holidays, Evan and everyone! > > A quick question about this -- ought the scrutinizer try to improve the > specificity of the ##core#the annotation, rather than having > annotate-foreign-procedure skip emitting it entirely? It would be ideal if we could add some bits of type information and let the scrutinizer infer the rest. I think that would need some thought, and/or experimentation. In these patches I dropped the annotations that added no information the scrutinizer couldn't infer. For example in (* * -> *) the only information is the arity of the function, which the scrutinizer can infer. There's only 1 return value from foreign functions, too (right?). > > ISTR it doesn't even look at the types in ##core#the nodes, but maybe it > should? I'd guess that would simplify this code, and might also give > benefits in other places, but maybe there's a reason it doesn't... Scrutinizer does walk ##core#the nodes. There's the error message r-type-mismatch-in-the for the situation where the annotation is incompatible with the inferred type. --- More on the ideal behaviour: There should a way for the user to override (if compatible) the type for definitions. If the user specifies (: foo (-> *)) the return type of foo should be * even if the scrutinizer could infer the actual return type to be, say a fixnum. That gives more freedom for a library writer from an API design perspective. > > Evan
