hashable? gated the type and not the operations: a generic could take and
return a (Map $t V) and could not get or put into one. The hash and the
equality are emitted as concrete symbols chosen from the key type, and
while $t is a variable there is no symbol to name.
The five arms that reach the pair - put, get, has-key?, reserve, clone -
now check their arguments and return a placeholder of the operation's own
type when the key is a type variable: Unit for put and reserve, None for
get so the (Option V) around it still checks, false for has-key?, a zeroed
map for clone. The node is thrown away with the rest of the abstract pass
and the real one is built in the copy, exactly as println's is.
What makes that different from print's free ride is the clause. A map
operation can fail at a concrete type; it is deferred anyway because
{:where (hashable? $t)} is in the signature, so the refusal lands at the
call that asked for the type, against a requirement the author wrote down.
A generic that declares nothing gets no deferral - deferred_key checks
first, and map_type has usually refused the signature already. So the rule
for the allow-list is not a headcount: either the operation cannot fail
after substituting, or a declared predicate gives its failure somewhere to
land. The comment at the print arm says that now instead of "stays two
long".
The instantiation-time refusal names the call site, the type it asked for,
the predicate and the clause, rather than repeating the generic's name
twice.
(t x) is not a name is_cast knows - t is not a machine type - so it is
its own arm, admitted by numeric? because a cast produces a number.
vec-new, pool-new and map-new all reach the one list of what names a
type, so the spike's line for vec-new had already covered the other two;
zeroed takes its type from the position it is written in. All four are
pinned in programs/generics.flan.
swap!, reverse!, sort!, sort-by!, index-of, min-of, max-of, map!,
reduce and filter, each written once over $t. Every call site in the
corpus moves with them.
min-of and max-of are not min and max because min and max are builtins
over two or more numbers and nothing shadows a builtin. These reduce a
slice, which is a different operation at a different arity.
sort-bytes! did not collapse into sort!, and the reason is the point of
the predicates: a [u8] is not ordered? and cannot be, because < is an
instruction and comparing two slices lexicographically is a loop. It is
sort-by! with bytes<? written in, one line, keeping its name and its
stability note. sum-i32/sum-f32 and append-i64!/append-f64! stay for the
reasons the spike gave.
Not what the notes predicted: none of the ten collapses on a signature
change alone. filter and reduce need copyable? because the checker
demands it - reduce's accumulator at (Vec i32) is a double move - and
the rest declare it because a slice of owning elements would have them
duplicating headers.
