[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
- Subject: Argument lists
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1986 02:57:00 -0000
- Cc: Common-Lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 2 Jul 1986 22:23-EDT from Kent M Pitman <KMP at SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
...I hope we will
make it explicit that &AUX specs should not be visible in the list returned
*IF* we add ARGLIST to the spec. There seems to be very little
enthusiasm for adding ARGLIST in raw form.
By the way, everyone keeps making vague allusions to the new condition
system as if it could somehow solve the issue of argument checking. You
shouldn't hope for magical cures from my camp.
Well, once we've decided on an error system in general, then we have to
decide what kind of error we signal for various problems, such as "too
many/few args", and what information has to be passed to the handler.
This is what people are waiting to see. You may not plan to make
proposals in this area, but your error proposal is a prerequisite for
discussing the signalling of specific errors in details. Nobody expects
a magical way of detecting errors at no cost, but the amount of stuff
that must be included in the signal certainly influences the cost of
requiring certain checks.