GNU bug report logs - #49707
Documentation and behavior differ for match (not ...) pattern

Please note: This is a static page, with minimal formatting, updated once a day.
Click here to see this page with the latest information and nicer formatting.

Package: guile; Reported by: "Jakub Wojciech" <jakub-w@HIDDEN>; dated Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:47:02 UTC; Maintainer for guile is bug-guile@HIDDEN.

Message received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org:


Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jul 2021 09:46:43 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 23 05:46:43 2021
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42334 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1m6rlT-0007Uk-4X
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 05:46:43 -0400
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:35712)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <jakub-w@HIDDEN>) id 1m6rlN-0007UY-Qr
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 05:46:41 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51910)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <jakub-w@HIDDEN>)
 id 1m6rlN-00024P-DM
 for bug-guile@HIDDEN; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 05:46:37 -0400
Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:57528)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <jakub-w@HIDDEN>)
 id 1m6rlL-0007b4-3X
 for bug-guile@HIDDEN; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 05:46:37 -0400
Received: from fews2.riseup.net (fews2-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.84])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "*.riseup.net",
 Issuer "Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified))
 by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4GWPbW57g4zDyTg
 for <bug-guile@HIDDEN>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 02:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak;
 t=1627033591; bh=siNbkzL78oUh0XyQUJ+jLnL3KHCyFe32N+BdtdrlNZM=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:From;
 b=RTIV+ntqJvbDzq9EPKbaIvdQqQIoAglD46fDwLJPFyz/fLYLLBb0DoecQgHbgqDTE
 VDo6G0VLDnLoRr0kQShpbD2B6elIexE+0tylfUuvNTHsFbfYPL5gq/o24PipNtmUc3
 WIAvEn49yd+KltttYfxLsN2K0ZQkjLVf74Y33kKE=
X-Riseup-User-ID: 04D4D64113D15ABB28AC339E10B929A56D0742AF3F585FF0C49F3CF9B34F6BF0
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by fews2.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4GWPbV6tlfz1ySf
 for <bug-guile@HIDDEN>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 02:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jakub Wojciech" <jakub-w@HIDDEN>
To: bug-guile@HIDDEN
Subject: Documentation and behavior differ for match (not ...) pattern
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 11:45:34 +0200
Message-ID: <87fsw5e535.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=198.252.153.129; envelope-from=jakub-w@HIDDEN;
 helo=mx1.riseup.net
X-Spam_score_int: -27
X-Spam_score: -2.8
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
 DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001,
 SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--)

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain

The documentation states:
> (not pat_1 ... pat_n)           if all pat_1 thru pat_n don't match

The code only implements (not pat), for a singular pattern, e.g:
  (match 2
    ((not 1) 'not-one)
    (1 'one)
    (2 'two))
  => not-one

According to the documentation this should work, but the result is erroneous:
  (match 3
    ((not 1 2) 'not-one-nor-two)
    (1 'one)
    (2 'two)
    (3 'three))
  => three

So it fails silently.

RhodiumToad on #guile proposed the simple fix that I took a liberty of
attaching to this message.
It adds a clause for (not ...), delegating it to 'or': (not (or ...)).

However RhodiumToad also raised another issue: is the code wrong or is
the documentation wrong?

The documentation in the file itself states:
> The 'not' operator succeeds if the given pattern doesn't match.
The test from upstream also only checks for the singular pattern inside
the 'not' clause.
This means that the idea behind this code is to allow one and only one
pattern.

Although I lean towards fixing the code to match the Guile's
documentation (i.e. applying the attached patch), I also wonder about
the relation with the upstream - Chibi Scheme.
There are three possibilities:
1. Diverge from their implementation.
2. Try to convince them to apply that patch too.
3. Make passing more than one pattern to 'not' clause a syntax error and
   changing the info manual documentation.

The question is: which one do we want to choose?

The rationale for not selecting option 3 is the fact that the change is
non-breaking, adds a functionality, and conforms to both SRFI-200 and
SRFI-204 drafts and the original Wright-Duba paper.


--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/x-patch
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=match-patch.diff

diff --git a/module/ice-9/match.upstream.scm b/module/ice-9/match.upstream.scm
index b1fc371b8..f12981cb3 100644
--- a/module/ice-9/match.upstream.scm
+++ b/module/ice-9/match.upstream.scm
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@
 ;;> @example{(match 1 ((or x) x))}
 ;;> @example{(match 1 ((or x 2) x))}
 
-;;> The @scheme{not} operator succeeds if the given pattern doesn't
+;;> The @scheme{not} operator succeeds if none of the given patterns
 ;;> match.  None of the identifiers used are available in the body.
 
 ;;> @example{(match 1 ((not 2) #t))}
@@ -355,6 +355,8 @@
      (match-extract-vars (or p ...) (match-gen-or v (p ...) g+s sk fk i) i ()))
     ((match-two v (not p) g+s (sk ...) fk i)
      (match-one v p g+s (match-drop-ids fk) (sk ... i) i))
+    ((match-two v (not p ...) g+s (sk ...) fk i)
+     (match-two v (not (or p ...)) g+s (sk ...) fk i))
     ((match-two v (get! getter) (g s) (sk ...) fk i)
      (let ((getter (lambda () g))) (sk ... i)))
     ((match-two v (set! setter) (g (s ...)) (sk ...) fk i)

--=-=-=--




Acknowledgement sent to "Jakub Wojciech" <jakub-w@HIDDEN>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to bug-guile@HIDDEN. Full text available.
Report forwarded to bug-guile@HIDDEN:
bug#49707; Package guile. Full text available.
Please note: This is a static page, with minimal formatting, updated once a day.
Click here to see this page with the latest information and nicer formatting.
Last modified: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:00:02 UTC

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.