Re: scm_wrong_num_args

[Marius Vollmer]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> > Implementationally, yes, but conceptionally, I regard the argument
> > checking to be part of the called function.  The evaluator should not
> > enter the picture explicitely.  The caller of a function is not the
> > evaluator but the function `one stack-frame up'.  If you want to find
> > the caller, you should look at the backtrace, in my opinion.
> 
> and this is IMO a questionable thing, since the evaluator is
> basically only _one_ of many places where a function may be called.
> If we have more than one evaluator (say, bytecode evaluator,
> jit-compiled code evaluator, ...) and in addition user code which
> can also call libguile functions, it can be very well of interest,
> _where_ the argument checking was actually performed.

There might be such cases, but I tend to think that in every such
case, a special error message will in order anyway.