Re: function_info()

• Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 23:44:57 PST
• From:
  Christopher Unkel <cunkel@us.itd.umich.edu>
• cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <199603220719.BAA05846@borg.reshall.ksu.edu>

On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 wizkid@borg.reshall.ksu.edu wrote:

> I have a suggestion for an enhancement/bug fix to function_info():
>
> ;function_info("");
> #-1:Input to EVAL, line 1:  Invalid argument
> ... called from built-in function eval()
> ... called from #57:eval_cmd_string (this == #2), line 18
> ... called from #57:eval*-d (this == #2), line 10
> (End of traceback)

This seems like correct behavior to me.  Though it's not documented that
the function does this in so many words, if you give it a string, and
that argument does not match the name of any known built-in function,
E_INVARG is an appropriate thing to return.

What would it return instead?

  --Chris                           cunkel@engin.umich.edu
    ResComp Network Support Technician, Bursley Hall
    "Invisibility is in the eye of the beholder."
    Home Page: http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~cunkel/

• function_info()
• From: wizkid@borg.reshall.ksu.edu

• Prev: Re: function_info()
• Next: FUP MOOmail
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows