[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: scm_wrong_num_args
From: |
Marius Vollmer |
Subject: |
Re: scm_wrong_num_args |
Date: |
25 Mar 2001 03:34:53 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 |
Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:
> Would it be allright to call this function scm_error_num_args_subr?
What about scm_error_wrong_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?
Consistency is always a good thing. I feel the whole error reporting
machinery needs to be checked for consistency, and before starting to
change the names only, we should probably first see whether there is
more to clean up.
- 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
- Re: scm_wrong_num_args, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/03/25