On 2016-09-02 19:59, Drew Adams wrote:
> Anyone getting super serious about the function, and interested
> beyond the doc string, will look at the code, and will conclude
> that the signature in the doc string must by a typo (erroneous).
> And erroneous it is.

I don't think so. Looking at the code, I see:

  (declare
   (advertised-calling-convention (regexp limit &optional greedy) "25.1"))

How would you conclude that this is a typo?!