[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: scm_wrong_num_args
From: |
Dirk Herrmann |
Subject: |
Re: scm_wrong_num_args |
Date: |
Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:16:25 +0100 (MET) |
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2001, Marius Vollmer wrote:
>
> > What about adding scm_wrong_num_args_subr that takes a string instead
> > of a SCM value to indicate the proc that received the wrong number of
> > arguments. This should make it easier for subrs to report this error
> > (because they don't have to find the SCM value representing them).
>
> Yes, that would be a good compromise.
Would it be allright to call this function scm_error_num_args_subr? I
feel that (in an arbitrary long term) it would be nice to have guile's
error reporting functions named scm_error_*. Do people agree with
me? (Please forget for a second that it would mean to change a lot of
code and introduce incompatibilities - it's more of a thought for a
guile-2.0 release.) Advantages would be consistency, improved
searchability and IMO better readability.
If so, then we might rise this concept to a paradigm for all error
reporting functions that are introduced _from_now_. It would even be
possible to define alias names for existing ones, but without doing any
deprecation yet. But, first I'd like to know if the whole thing is
considered a good idea.
Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann
- scm_wrong_num_args, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/03/06
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Marius Vollmer, 2001/03/13
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Martin Grabmueller, 2001/03/14
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/03/14
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Dale P. Smith, 2001/03/27
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Gary Houston, 2001/03/28
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/03/28
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Marius Vollmer, 2001/03/30
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Marius Vollmer, 2001/03/30
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Marius Vollmer, 2001/03/24