Re: Arbitrary function: find the number(s) of expected arguments

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:36:45 +0100
> From: Paul Pogonyshev <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> 
> > We have sub-arity, so I think we should remove it and leave an alias
> > that will call this new function for backward compatibility. Having
> > both sounds redundant.
> 
> Drew Adams wrote:
> 
> > This sounds wrong to me. Just calling the new code (which I
> > have not looked at, but which I presume does for arbitrary
> > functions what `subr-arity' does for primitives) would NOT
> > provide backward compatibility, precisely because it would
> > (presumably) NOT have the same behavior as `subr-arity' for
> > non-primitives - it would not raise an error.
> 
> The patch itself doesn't touch `subr-arity'. Whether to alias
> it to `func-arity' or not can be decided later.

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

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.

Thanks.