<< Back to previous view

[CLJ-1491] External type hint inconsistency between regular functions and primitive functions Created: 05/Aug/14  Updated: 25/Sep/14  Resolved: 25/Sep/14

Status: Closed
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Release 1.6
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Defect Priority: Minor
Reporter: Gunnar Völkel Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Duplicate Votes: 0
Labels: compiler, typehints

Attachments: Text File 0001-preserve-fn-meta-on-invokePrim.patch    
Patch: Code
Approval: Triaged

 Description   

Consider the following example.

(set! *warn-on-reflection* true)

(defn f [n] (java.util.ArrayList. (int n)))

(let [al ^java.util.ArrayList (f 10)]
  (.add al 23))

As expected this does not warn about reflection. The following example shows the same scenario for a primitive function.

(set! *warn-on-reflection* true)

(defn g [^long n] (java.util.ArrayList. n))

(let [al ^java.util.ArrayList (g 10)]
  (.add al 23))
; Reflection warning, NO_SOURCE_PATH:2:3 - call to method add on java.lang.Object can't be resolved (no such method).

So the behavior of external type hints is inconsistent for regular functions and primitive functions.
Most likely, the external type hint information is somehow ignored for primitive functions since the case where they return no primitive value is not treated separately.



 Comments   
Comment by Nicola Mometto [ 05/Aug/14 4:32 AM ]

The following patch preserves the original metadata of the invoke form on the transformed .invokePrim expression

Comment by Alex Miller [ 05/Aug/14 7:40 AM ]

Not challenging the premise at all but workaround:

(let [^java.util.ArrayList al (g 10)]
  (.add al 23))
Comment by Gunnar Völkel [ 05/Aug/14 8:09 AM ]

Well, the example above was already changed such that you can also place the type hint on the binding to check whether that works.
The actual problem arose when using the return value of the function exactly once without an additional binding.

Comment by Jozef Wagner [ 05/Aug/14 10:48 AM ]

Responding to Alex's comment, is there a consensus on which variant is (more) idiomatic? IMHO latter variant seems to be more reliable (as this issue shows, and for primitive hits too), and is consistent with 'place hint on a symbol' idiom which is applied when type hinting vars or fn args.

(let [symbol ^typehint expr] body)
(let [^typehint symbol expr] body)
Comment by Alex Miller [ 05/Aug/14 4:59 PM ]

They have different meanings. Generally the latter covers some cases that the former does not so it's probably the better one. I believe one of the cases is that if expr is a macro, the typehint is lost in the former.

Comment by Nicola Mometto [ 25/Sep/14 9:59 AM ]

The patch for http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-1533?jwupdated=61127&focusedCommentId=35814 fixes this issue and more and should be preferred over this

Comment by Alex Miller [ 25/Sep/14 10:31 AM ]

Dupe of CLJ-1533

Generated at Sun Aug 19 23:34:47 CDT 2018 using JIRA 4.4#649-r158309.