[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Argument Lists
- Subject: Re: Argument Lists
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Stanley Shebs)
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 86 12:22:47 MDT
- Apparently-to: email@example.com
- Newsgroups: fa.common-lisp
- Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
- References: <FAHLMAN.12217236274.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Reply-to: shebs@utah-orion.UUCP (Stanley Shebs)
In article <FAHLMAN.12217236274.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU> Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU (Scott E. Fahlman) writes:
> It is not required that an
> implementation signal an error when there are either too many or too few
>I would have sworn that implementaitosn were required to signal an error
>in this case, but a scan of CLtL seems to indicate that you are right.
>The section on argument lists consistently says "is an error" and not
>"signals an error". I can't remember (or imagine) why these cases
>aren't required to signal an error, and I think this should be fixed.
I thought the reason was that implementations shouldn't be required to
do *any* checking as a part of function-calling protocol, since it would
slow things down on stock hardware.
>Does anyone disagree?
It's fine as it stands. Error checking should be optional, except in the
most infrequent or potentially catastrophic situations (i.e. package system).
>Are there any implementations out there that
>don't signal errors when a function is given too many or too few args?
PCLS is pretty sleazy most of the time... people seem to like it that way :-)