[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
scm_wrong_num_args
From: |
Dirk Herrmann |
Subject: |
scm_wrong_num_args |
Date: |
Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:28:19 +0100 (MET) |
Hello list,
I suggest to change the function scm_wrong_num_args to take two
parameters: a const char* indicating the function where the lack of the
parameters was detected, and a SCM value indicating the function object
that was to be applied (or #f if none).
There are two reasons for this: The first is, that currently the error
message is not too helpful:
guile> (make-string)
<unnamed port>:3:1: In procedure make-string in expression (make-string):
<unnamed port>:3:1: Wrong number of arguments to #<primitive-procedure
make-string>
ABORT: (wrong-number-of-args)
Actually, the error was detected in the evaluatur, and not in procedure
make-string. Another example can be found in hooks.c in function
run-hook, where currently a misc error is thrown if the number of
arguments does not match. Again, a better error was a wrong-num-args
error, indicating that the error was detected in run-hook and the wrong
number of args was given to the hook object.
The second reason is about symmetry, because all other error reporting
functions take a const char* indicating the origin of the error.
Please tell me if this incompatible change will be OK.
Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann
- scm_wrong_num_args,
Dirk Herrmann <=
- 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, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/03/15
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Marius Vollmer, 2001/03/24
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/03/25
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Dale P. Smith, 2001/03/27
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Marius Vollmer, 2001/03/30
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Dale P. Smith, 2001/03/27
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Gary Houston, 2001/03/28