[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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]