Skip to content

Conversation

@sabiwara
Copy link
Contributor

@sabiwara sabiwara commented Dec 20, 2024

Close #14089

To be backported

{_, []} when not Sequential ->
invalid_capture(Meta, Expr, E);
{EExpr, []} ->
Meta2 = lists:keydelete(no_parens, 1, Meta),
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is not strictly needed for the fix, but otherwise we're expanding to something like {:fn, [{:no_parens, true}], [{:->, [{:no_parens, true}], ... which feels weird and make it harder to test.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think ideally we want to compile this to:

Function.capture(expr, name, arity)

So something we get something like this back:

iex> &(if true, do: NaiveDateTime, else: DateTime).utc_now/0
&NaiveDateTime.utc_now/0

Note we already do this for variables:

iex> var = NaiveDateTime
iex> &var.utc_now/0
&NaiveDateTime.utc_now/0

So we probably need to generalize this branch of the code a bit more (i.e. it should apply whenever the left side of the . is an expression)?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nah, ignore me, there is clearly a semantic difference here. Your version executes foo() in &foo().bar/0 when the function is invoked. Mine would execute it always.

I think this is actually a bug. We should not have accepted this format but we clearly do. My suggestion is to deprecate this feature in main.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be clear beyond doubt:

&expr.fun/arity

Only works if:

  • expr is a variable or an atom at compile-time
  • fun is an atom at compile-time
  • arity is an integer at compile-time

If those conditions are not met and it is valid, we should deprecate it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds good, I hesitated to propose something in this vein but was unsure if there would be other legit cases.
As you said assigning to a variable or using fn seems better either way.

Copy link
Member

@josevalim josevalim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ship it and please back port it.

I will open up a separate issue for the deprecation, feel free to tackle it!

@sabiwara sabiwara merged commit 853e9ca into elixir-lang:main Dec 20, 2024
9 checks passed
@sabiwara sabiwara deleted the no_parens_capture branch December 20, 2024 13:27
sabiwara added a commit to sabiwara/elixir that referenced this pull request Dec 20, 2024
@sabiwara
Copy link
Contributor Author

Backported

I will open up a separate issue for the deprecation, feel free to tackle it!

Thanks, will do!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Confusing type warning when invoking a function within a function capture

2 participants