On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 08:35 -0700, Richard Fateman wrote:
> I would expect something to break, perhaps in a very bad way, if we
> set up a function call with some number of arguments -- I'm thinking
> 100,000
> or 100,000,000 or 4,000,000,000. So we're not really fixing it, just
> moving it into the distance.
Sure, most users will accept that it breaks with some
reasonably large number of arguments. But nobody would expect
it to break with just 65 arguments. That's way too low.
Jaime