Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> If we are going to keep sub-arity, I'd prefer if this new function
> called it, instead of copying its code inline.
>

Done.


> Also, I believe you said you'd write the documentation?  Could you
> please add that?  Then the patch will be ready to go in, I think.
>

In the attached patch I modified `doc/lispref/functions.texi': text about
`subr-arity' is moved to a new section above about `func-arity' and
adapted as needed.  `subr-arity' is still in the documentation, but I
replaced its description with an advice to use `func-arity' instead. Is
that enough?

Do you still need changelog entries? Long time since I committed
anything to Emacs, maybe you finally got rid of them (I hope)?

Paul