Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 13 Oct 2000, Lars Gullik Bj�nnes wrote:
|
| > Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
| > | > >>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bj�nnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | >
| > | > Lars> You mean so that we can have a centralized testing at the top of
| > | > Lars> the function?
| > | >
| > | > I'm not sure what I mean exactly, but we could declare the arguments
| > | > of the function so that there type can be checked by dispatch, and the
| > | > the func would use string_arg[1], int_arg[2] and the code would check
| > | > the function uses the arguments in the way it declared it should.
| > | >
| > | > Maybe it is not useful, after all. Or too complicated for what it
| > | > provides. Anyway, I think we should not need tests at the beginning of
| > | > each function.
| > |
| > | of course, if you used XTL, this is built in...
| >
| > How?
| >
| > Remember that you need to input the arg somewhere too, and that I
| > should be albel to do things like:
| >
| > FuncSlot(...).arg("123); // we never really entered a int
|
| How often do you need this?
Every time I input someting in the minibuffer or read in a complex
command from a file.
Lgb
