Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!dewey.soe.berkeley.edu!mkent
From: mkent@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Marty Kent)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: declarations
Message-ID: <28522@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 23 Mar 89 18:01:15 GMT
References: <7325@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mkent@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Marty Kent)
Organization: School of Education, UC-Berkeley
Lines: 22

In article <7325@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes:
>(defun foo (x) >  (declare (ignore x)) >  :ignored)
(foo)
>:IGNORED
Allegro Lisp says "Too few arguments to FOO"
>(foo 1 2 3 4 5 6)
>:IGNORED
Allegro says "Too many arguments to FOO"
>Is this the right behavior? Should FOO complain about too many or too few
>arguments, or can I count on this happening in all CL's? Steele doesn't
>seem to have anything to say about it.
Perhaps the "right" or "wrong" behavior in this situation is yet another
little loophole in the CL spec, though I certainly believe the ACL
responses are more -helpful- than the ones you quote...



Marty Kent  	Sixth Sense Research and Development
		415/642 0288	415/548 9129
		MKent@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu
		{uwvax, decvax, inhp4}!ucbvax!mkent%dewey.soe.berkeley.edu
Kent's heuristic: Look for it first where you'd most like to find it.