Re: scm_wrong_num_args

[Marius Vollmer]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> Maybe you have noticed that I have already started with some
> cleaning up.  I have for example removed all uses of scm_wta and
> deprecated this function.  If you look at the implementation of
> scm_wta, you will know why :-) In any case, I think that we will
> probably even after all cleanups end with some error reporting
> functions like scm_error_num_args or scm_error_range, even if their
> implementation differs from today's.  Thus my suggestion to name
> these functions consistently scm_error_*

Yes, please do whatever you think is best.