| Type | Wish | Status | submitted | Date | 26-Aug-2014 16:15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Version | r3 master | Category | Unspecified | Submitted by | fork |
| Platform | All | Severity | minor | Priority | normal |
| Summary | Unify FUNCTION! and CLOSURE! types by putting CLOSURE: in the function spec |
|---|---|
| Description |
Currently there are two distinct types for functions and closures. This is despite the fact that from a usage-level, there is not really much of a reason why something that would take a FUNCTION! wouldn't allow you to pass in a CLOSURE! or vice-versa. The prescription is to use the typeset ANY-FUNCTION! to catch both types. But it raises the point that at an implementation level, the flag for whether something is a closure or not could be managed by a signal in the function's spec rather than by its type. It's easy to forget to match both, and will be especially frustrating if using a library someone wrote where they missed this case. CureCode ate my ticket because of login reasons but long story short was: >> x: closure [a b] [c: a + b return [c]] >> probe :x make function! [[ closure: a b local: c ] [ c: a + b return [c] ] Nothing that this includes CC#2108 for /LOCAL => local: This also reclaims a type, which are oft-cited as being a scarce resource. |
| Example code |
| Assigned to | n/a | Fixed in | - | Last Update | 28-Aug-2014 23:07 |
|---|
| Comments | |
|---|---|
|
(0004498)
Ladislav 28-Aug-2014 16:23 |
This is most certainly not a bug. |
|
(0004502)
fork 28-Aug-2014 23:07 |
I was trying to close all the browser tabs for a reboot and found an unfinished proposal in a tab. Knowing it might fail AND then not let me use browser back to get the content, I copied it to the clipboard first. Or so I thought. When I pushed the button--it failed and did not let me go back, and somehow my paste of the content only pasted the first two paragraphs.
Angry and shaking my fists at the sky--wondering why hath God forsaken me--I typed the minimum necessary to complete the entry instead of recomposing. In doing so, I neglected to categorize it from the short list of categories. Mystery solved. |
| Date | User | Field | Action | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 28-Aug-2014 23:07 | Fork | Type | Modified | Bug => Wish |
| 28-Aug-2014 23:07 | Fork | Comment : 0004502 | Added | - |
| 28-Aug-2014 16:23 | Ladislav | Comment : 0004498 | Added | - |
| 26-Aug-2014 16:19 | Fork | Description | Modified | - |
| 26-Aug-2014 16:15 | Fork | Ticket | Added | - |