From: "mame (Yusuke Endoh)" <mame@...>
Date: 2012-04-24T20:18:13+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:44585] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6086] Number of arguments and named parameters


Issue #6086 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).

Assignee changed from mame (Yusuke Endoh) to matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)

Matz, what do you think?

I'm not against this.  But I'm not sure how surprising this behavior is,
until I encounter it in actual use case.
"(1 for 0 **)" is not very good-looking, but I have no alternative idea.

-- 
Yusuke Endoh <mame@tsg.ne.jp>
----------------------------------------
Bug #6086: Number of arguments and named parameters
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6086#change-26157

Author: marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune)
Status: Assigned
Priority: Low
Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Category: core
Target version: 2.0.0
ruby -v: r34800


While working on the messages of "wrong number of arguments" error (see #6085), I realized that the new named parameter feature can lead to misleading error messages:

  def foo(x: 42)
  end
  
  arg = {x: :bar}
  foo(arg) # => nil (no error)
  arg = :bar
  foo(arg) # => ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (1 for 0)

It would be better if the wording was changed for methods accepting options. Maybe something like:

  foo(arg) # => ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (1 for 0 **)

Suggestions?



-- 
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/