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

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> 
> >  `subr-arity' is still in the documentation, but I replaced its
> > description with an advice to use `func-arity' instead.
> 
> Again, that is wrong, IMO.

It isn't.

> IIUC, you _cannot_ use `func-arity' to test whether something
> is a subr.

You have subrp for that; using subr-arity for this purpose borders on
the ridiculous.  It's certainly unclean.

> IOW, I am repeating the same argument I made before, when
> I said that `subr-arity' should not be deprecated and
> simply replaced by `func-arity'.

You were wrong then, and you are wrong now.

> If my argument is being rejected (in effect - in the new doc
> string) then why are we not doing that openly (deprecating
> `subr-arity' and replacing it with `func-arity')?

Because you objected, and I'd rather not start yet another endless
discussion.