From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Heerdegen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Arbitrary function: find the number(s) of expected arguments Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 18:59:14 +0100 Message-ID: <8760wie4ct.fsf@web.de> References: <56E8906C.5050405@lanl.gov> <83egb68vfy.fsf@gnu.org> <87zituefp9.fsf@web.de> <83a8lu8srs.fsf@gnu.org> <87twk2ebp2.fsf@web.de> <838u1e8od1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pouqe9yw.fsf@web.de> <837fgy8mho.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1qqe53m.fsf@web.de> <83zitu73wo.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458410389 9354 80.91.229.3 (19 Mar 2016 17:59:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 17:59:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 19 18:59:40 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ahLA2-0004tv-GC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 18:59:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49908 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ahL9y-0007NV-RD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 13:59:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48476) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ahL9m-0007LK-Fz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 13:59:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ahL9l-0007Vf-Jr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 13:59:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.4]:53467) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ahL9g-0007UC-V5; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 13:59:17 -0400 Original-Received: from drachen.dragon ([94.218.210.27]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LcPm2-1Zygzt1WTe-00jq3v; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 18:59:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: <83zitu73wo.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 19 Mar 2016 19:50:47 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:zcd3cLyw6aw/6QVWFo8ha5/fIrdGlMccMc9pxwpyHbN9kqkvXTn f7mDEHAdH2I0S6a5Y6P68iqkBfhlTCGsGIVujf6TW6hbnVfSV56YBy8eCDs5BnKD57VDRMm lQ0aqwpkVQ8JH+R1CWXbqyLGf3Qt1Jzn4xN/cx7k5ZMMZxQ9lcEjwyxh0cmpJNFUMJQKQd5 U/9/2K6rl3D5XhxJnqjlw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:Q9fBiwXjQPE=:s98p+EzGycS4U42VWak501 Ky4Qcy8GTmy1pd0/XpxWYdVEYi0BRBGyL7m4QLOy++7p3ZAnNyYIxaeBT7pPqjLBpHjx0Sf4n 2fUCtEpQwsYxqeccpgOc9M7gAaUh3HeG0Xd5eTdTJoE2lpw2dFg8R8SJz+IjncpoWeMZEc6ZD v537T1EU7ZQ9Iw3pu+uqnNGJNaAeT/KNGsmTKTzLJtSf2Mbjc5S70qXL+Yd4pHMuUKTO2TUya CFgJ6hzYLA3ywlwo+WDUFJvjo78zM+K3ayT4omdfTpen39FxJPPvFol48X6RkXxji2ZM20RZ0 j6H4K1xDOpTZZ1Q+B8ZY0nbBvWZ9JghOO8nST9SMwNnUx403RBllUd0+XgjQZKI8aSmC6G0R9 PKnm4+keHMrXhZfxq0GzpyS19p+9hfgwYfuQJe7vvSjvRy5Qc/2zAPJ5MRioyxYJpEZ4fFDos K5r72Q6/DtjM0ANZqftTQqF/YoW2qwUgNUdyckGaTlcdG+qXyKeVf4izEsNwVHBcrOroSJN/y J0yzMVtCUU1Dq4EnJBrctjZY8mUvx2jbXcDWo+bIcU4jT9rtSZDoM9kUHobpXmdzj0zby3xyB IodUD6MFxah5ooxHoqYQNO2IDKrMiapmFPhit7wXSDAKSy4zxRy+DUwb6zf3CKqawX8/BgavG MStAGR/gqFjYt4uWRxcFerh5x3LBDiny+uwlHAJwdGDMyU5V1TCoFZ5qWSVaoIG3bPBDWX43X 0MXf9RNo9O45ra/hikYD1vo6WJnYF8FmiIBKSDhtRag3Ss4ZPlyMzfcOuiyfsvTlcb3Zj6Xb X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 212.227.15.4 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:201890 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > I disagree with this conclusion. The fact is that the Emacs Lisp > > > interpreter does know how to produce a clear answer. > > > > Imagine `f' accepts, say, three arguments. Now, let's > > > > (advice-add 'f :around > > (defun my-f-around-advice (orig-f &rest args) > > (let ((some-value (g args))) > > (if (function-p (car-safe some-value)) > > (apply (car some-value) (cdr some-value)) > > (if (h args) > > (k args) > > (apply orig-f some-value)))))) > > > > What should (function-arity #'f) return? > > How is that relevant to the cited text? I had concluded that it is not possible to implement `function-arity' so that it will always give a meaningful return value. You disagreed (that's the cited text), so I tried to give an example proving my conclusion. What did I miss? Michael.