From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add 'guix hash'.
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 19:30:47 +0200
Message-ID: <87txneb8e0.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87li92alhe.fsf@karetnikov.org> <874nforp12.fsf@gnu.org>
	<8762015b0w.fsf@karetnikov.org> <871uap5ak8.fsf@karetnikov.org>
	<87zjxdvtqp.fsf@gnu.org> <8738uy7gim.fsf@karetnikov.org>
	<87k3oa1tzd.fsf@gnu.org> <878v4qefua.fsf@karetnikov.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41962)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1UPyrb-0006Oe-Qy
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:31:17 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1UPyra-00084k-GL
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:31:15 -0400
Received: from [2a01:e0b:1:123:ca0a:a9ff:fe03:271e] (port=60814
	helo=xanadu.aquilenet.fr) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1UPyra-00082D-9K
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:31:14 -0400
In-Reply-To: <878v4qefua.fsf@karetnikov.org> (Nikita Karetnikov's message of
	"Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:21:33 +0400")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Nikita Karetnikov <nikita@karetnikov.org>
Cc: bug-guix@gnu.org

Nikita Karetnikov <nikita@karetnikov.org> skribis:

>>> I guess that "wrong number of arguments" can be handled by
>>> (lambda args ...).  Still, the above feels much safer.
>
>> Not sure what you mean, but the above snippet is OK.
>
> I thought that it's possible to remove 'match' and get the "wrong number
> of arguments" from (strerror ...).  But now I'm not sure.  "wrong number
> of arguments" should be handled by 'wrong-number-of-args', not
> 'system-error'.  So I'll use the proposed version.

Exactly.  =E2=80=98strerror=E2=80=99 is equivalent to the same-named C func=
tion=E2=80=93that
is, it returns the error string corresponding to the given errno value.

Ludo=E2=80=99.