Subject: RE: bug#40968: 28.0.50; (apply nil)

From: Drew Adams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 12:17:21 -0700 (PDT)

> >  apply function arg &rest more-args
> >                 ^^^
> >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/cltl/
> clm/node81.html__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!Kes9zsDqvdTyifr0LvhIg-
> x3qHNl3XPQZaBRBxbjXsP-qGz7ieoaYPp6rfGGzbvg$
> >
> > On the other hand the CL HyperSpec agrees with you:
> >
> >  apply function &rest args+ => result*
> >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/Hype
> rSpec/Body/f_apply.htm__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!Kes9zsDqvdTyifr0LvhIg-
> x3qHNl3XPQZaBRBxbjXsP-qGz7ieoaYPp6rY83YOj5$
> 
> I think '&rest args+' is just BNF shorthand for 'arg &rest more-args'
> (i.e., both signatures above require a total of 2 or more arguments).
> 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/Hype
> rSpec/Body/01_dab.htm__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!Kes9zsDqvdTyifr0LvhIg-
> x3qHNl3XPQZaBRBxbjXsP-qGz7ieoaYPp6rbGmUXoP$

Ah yes; thanks.

So Common Lisp is unequivocally in the camp of
requiring at least two args.

And if Elisp follows that (which I think it should,
unless someone can present a good use case for just
(apply FUNCTION)), then it should raise an error if
there are not at least two args.

Just one opinion.