From: "Radosław Bułat" <radek.bulat@...>
Date: 2008-12-07T19:20:04+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:20405] Re: More powerful method arguments

2008/12/7 Daniel Luz <dev@mernen.com>:
>> then we could use optional argument "options" like named arguments
>> list (which could be empty).
>> foo(1, 2, 3)
>> foo(1, 2, 3, controller: "foo", action: "bar")
>
> Though there's an important problem here: in your first case,
> `options` would be "3", not the empty Hash. And if you are completely
> sure the last argument is a Hash (i.e., the user will always supply
> named arguments), you could just leave it as a non-optional argument.

Ups, you are right. My idea is "broken by design" ;-).

-- 
Pozdrawiam

Rados�aw Bu�at
http://radarek.jogger.pl - m�j blog