Re: [Sbcl-devel] BUG: Backtrace for "invalid number of arguments" is confusing.

[Dirk G. <di...@di...>]

Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Dirk Gerrits wrote:
> 
>> When I do (cons 1 2 3 4 5) in SBCL I'll get the expected "invalid 
>> number of arguments: 5", but the top of the backtrace will say (CONS 1 
>> 2).
>>
>> This behaviour is perhaps acceptable with standard functions, but it 
>> also happens with user-defined functions where it is massively confusing.
> 
> 
> Would a frame looking like
> 
>  (CONS 1 2 #<unavailable-arguments>)
> 
> be satisfactory?

Well, if (CONS 1 2 3 4 5) is not attainable, then sure.  Though 
something like (CONS 1 2 #<3 unavailable arguments>) would be marginally 
better.

Kind regards,

Dirk Gerrits