Please help?!

Can someone please help?!
Have had this warning using visual lisp editor:

warning: too many arguments

Have attached txt file with selected area of part of routine that is being flagged up - can anyone please advise?
The more I look at it the more confused I'm getting!!

Is there any software to help on this kind of thing? I know the visual lisp editor is useful, but is there anything that actually highlights the "actual" error? Or does VLE do this, but I just don't know how to?! (more the case!!!)

Thanks in advance,
HOLLY x

 

<snip> (if (tblsearch "layer" "Hid") nil <snip>
should be..
<snip> (if (= (tblsearch "layer" "Hid") nil) <snip>

same for your other tblsearch if's.

 

Thanks for the post C Witt

Will give it a shot and keep you posted!

HOLLY x

 

I loaded it into VLIDE, hit "check text in editor" and it highlighted the
first line starting with (action_tile etc.

The problem is, you've hidden a necessary closing parenthesis behind a
comment in the sixth line:

;;;strcat );;;action_tile

Once you straighten out that and any other simlar glitches, you might have a
mismatched parentheses issue.

Some people do it, but I dislike the business of commenting closing
parentheses. It can lead to silly errors like this, and IMHO doesn't help
anything. The indentation level should be enough to show you what is being
closed. Once I have my code debugged, I do away with all the lines which
contain nothing but trailing parentheses, and wind up with something like:

(action_tile
"accept"
(strcat
"(progn
(setq siz (atof (get_tile \"selections\")))
(done_dialog)(setq userclick T))"))

At a quick glance, there are some other oddities in here, like why would you
ever need to (setq p1 p1)? When you get the thing running, and if you don't
mind constructive criticism, post your code again and folks might suggest
ways to improve it.

 

you should attach all the files being used.. (prevents "us" from missing
/seeing errors were they may or may not be).

 

Not necessarily.

Mathematical equality and nullness don't really go together.

(if (not <whatever>) ...) or (if (null <whatever>) ...) are better form than
(if ( = nil <whatever>) ... ).

Better yet, turn it around so you make the opposite test, and save an
operation, e.g. (if <whatever> ...). That's what Holly is doing, and I see
no error in the code as far as the tblsearch portions. Example:

(if (tblsearch "layer" "Text")
nil
(command "-layer" "new" "Text" "colour" "green" "Text" "")
)

This correctly does nothing, and returns nil, if the layer exists, otherwise
it creates the layer. It could be reconstructed as you suggest:

(if (not (tblsearch "layer" "Text"))
(command "-layer" "new" "Text" "colour" "green" "Text" "")
;nil is implied here
)

That's one line shorter, if you eliminate the implied nil, but it adds an
operation to the test, and doesn't accomplish anything different. It could
be argued that the second version is a smidgen more intuitive, and that the
difference is efficiency is in significant, but my point is, they're equally
"correct" in doing what the code's supposed todo.

 

(action_tile
"accept"
(strcat
"(progn (setq siz (atof (get_tile \"selections\")))"
"(done_dialog)(setq userclick T))"
);;;strcat );;;action_tile

 

I was only trying to fix the error.. nothing else.. you read to much
into my reply..

 

Okay, short version, that wasn't the error.

 

and now i know that. thank you.