[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[adjustable arrays?] More FORMAT
- To: Jon L White <email@example.com>, navajo!Moon%STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM@navajo.stanford.edu
- Subject: [adjustable arrays?] More FORMAT
- From: David C. Plummer <DCP@quabbin.scrc.symbolics.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 87 08:57 EDT
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <8705210227.AA03071@bhopal.edsel.uucp>
Date: Wed, 20 May 87 19:27:34 PDT
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jon L White)
You can imagine how someone using a system that doesn't detect this error
will fare when trying to run on another system that really can't adjust
"You can imagine how someone using a system that doesn't do
number-of-argument checking will fare ..."
As I recall, the number-of-argument discussion did happen several months
ago, and by the strict reading of CLtL it "is an error" to supply the
wrong number of arguments but implementations are not required to
"signal an error." To me, this array discussion should fall in the same
- What "is an error?"
- What "signals an error?"
- What implementation freedom should there be?
- How important are some of these to various parts of the language?
For example, I would rank number of argument checking considerably
more important than worrying about allowing some systems to adjust
even simple arrays.