[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Issue: COERCE-INCOMPLETE (Version 3)

I'm crossing my fingers you'll think this is ready to ship to X3J13 for
a vote. Everyone might not agree on the same option, but hopefully it at
least adequately expresses the viable options at this point and we
can just get a show of hands to figure out whether to adopt one of these
two things or to just give up on the issue.

Reference:	 COERCE (p50)
Edit history:	 Version 1 of COERCE-INCOMPLETE, 26-Feb-88 by M. Ida
		 Version 1 of COERCE-FROM-TYPE,  20-Jun-88 by Pitman
		 Version 2 of COERCE-INCOMPLETE, 21-Nov-88 by Pitman
		  (consolidate previous two proposals)
		 Version 3 of COERCE-INCOMPLETE, 07-Mar-89 by Pitman
		  (eliminate unpopular proposal, two new options)

Problem Description:

  COERCE is difficult to extend because ambiguities arise about the
  source type of the coercion.

  For example, if the symbol STRING were permitted as a second argument
  to coerce, as in (COERCE NIL 'STRING), there would be two posssible
  return values: "" or "NIL". The choice would be arbitrary and would
  have to be specified by the documentation. No matter which was chosen,
  it would probably turn out to be a problem for some applications at
  some times.

  Another example is (COERCE (CHAR-CODE #\A) 'STRING). This might
  return the same as (FORMAT NIL "~D" (CHAR-CODE #\A)) -- "65" in
  most ASCII-based implementations -- or it might return "A". Again,
  the choice would be arbitrary.

  There is clear desire on the part of the user community to lift some of
  the existing restrictions on arguments to COERCE, but because of legitimate
  concerns about ambiguities, the Common Lisp designers have thus far
  refused to do so.

  Unfortunately, the failure of COERCE to handle these cases means it is
  very difficult to learn to use COERCE. And the fact that COERCE is not
  easily learned contributes to difficulty in learning Common Lisp because
  instead of a single coercion operator with general purpose semantics, a
  number of very special purpose coercion operators must be learned instead.

  Some middle ground needs to be found, which neither compromises the
  clear semantics and portable nature of COERCE nor complicates COERCE
  in a way that makes it unlearnable.

  Also, some people have expressed a desire for COERCE to be more 
  `symmetric.' Usually they seem to mean that they want it to be the case
  that if (COERCE x y) works, then (COERCE (COERCE x y) (TYPE-OF x)) 
  should also work. Although this is not an essential desire, it would
  certainly be nice to achieve.

  Define COERCE to accept the following equivalences:

   1. (COERCE x 'STRING)    == (STRING x)

  Clarify that

   4. (COERCE x 'FLOAT)     == (FLOAT x)


    Many users think of STRING, for example, as ``the way to coerce
    something to a string'' and are baffled why COERCE and STRING
    disagree on how to do this.

    Such users think that if there's a moral battle to be waged
    over how to coerce an object to a STRING, the battle has already
    been lost by defining the STRING function -- that whatever
    decision is made for STRING must also apply to COERCE for the
    sake of simplicity.
    Similar arguments can be made for PATHNAME, FLOAT, and RATIONAL.


  Deprecate COERCE.


    COERCE is not functionally necessary -- no operation that it does
    cannot be done in some other way.  As such, it is basically just
    a matter of syntactic convenience, and perhaps isn't worth having
    around if it will be the subject of endless debate.  Deprecating
    it would allow us to declare this issue a `dead end' and focus our
    attention on matters of greater substance.

Current Practice:

  Presumably No one implements either of the proposals at this time,
  since none are compatible with CLtL.

Cost to Implementors:

  COERCE: Small to moderate.


Cost to Users:

  COERCE: This is an incompatible change. (COERCE 'NIL 'STRING) => ""
    but (STRING NIL) => "NIL".  How many applications are impacted by
    this change is not clear. It would be straightforward to shadow
    COERCE with an alternate definition that did the old thing in
    cases where people were worried. Once such cases have been 
    identified, rewriting 
     (IF X (COERCE X 'STRING) "")
    will suffice in most cases.

  DEPRECATE: No immediate work would be needed, although many maintained
    applications would get upgraded in order to use the primitives that
    are `in vogue.'

Cost of Non-Adoption:

  People will continue to see and debate the issues alluded to in
  the Problem Description.


  The cost of Non-Adoption will be avoided.


  COERCE: Many people will probably see the idea of making
    COERCE consistent with STRING, PATHNAME, FLOAT, and
    RATIONAL as a clear improvement -- possibly outweighing
    the costs of both an incompatible change and a decision
    to arbitrarily favor one treatment over the other.

  DEPRECATE: Some may take the deprecation of COERCE as an
    aesthetic improvement because it eliminates the need to
    debate this issue further. Others may see the 
    ``de-centralization'' of coercion as a step backward.


  Hopefully Moon and Masinter support it, too, since it's
  basically patterned after a bunch of mail they were sending
  back and forth.

  A proposal to extend COERCE to permit a ``view type'' argument
  was considered and rejected as too extreme to consider seriously
  in the timeframe available.

  Pierson suggests that COERCE ought to be a candidate for
  generic function status.

  Pitman thinks that making [two-argument] COERCE generic would
  be a -very- bad idea  but believes that his earlier proposal
  involving a third `view type' argument might be able to 
  accomodate such extension.