From: itsme213 <itsme213@...>
Date: 2005-01-04T20:51:33+09:00
Subject: Re: Seeking info on keyword parameters


"Florian Gross" <flgr@ccan.de> wrote in message
news:33vd54F45vujfU1@individual.net...
> Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> > Unlike your expectation, 2.0 keyword arguments will look like
> > Python's.  They are like "named optional arguments", rather than
> > Smalltalk style method names.

Thanks for the clarification regarding overloading, Matz. I can live with
this.

I'm not sure I got the answer to my first question: will the names be
available via reflection.

> Still, could we not add a method to Method objects

This is where I get a bit lost. This information belongs with UnboundMethod
objects, doesn't it? It would be fine to have indirect access to it via
Method objects.

> that gives us more
> information about the method signature then just how many arguments it
> expects? I think it would be nice if we could somehow get the names of
> keyword and regular arguments and the default value. Maybe an Array of
> [symbol, type, default] where type would be something like :regular,
> :keyword, :grab, :block_grab, :keyword_grab or nil and default and
> symbol nil if not appropriate. While we are at it we could also add
> Method#mandatory_argc.
>
> I think that information could be extracted from the Node tree on-demand
> so it would not have an overhead unless it is really used.
>
> Does this sound possible? Would it be worth the effort?

I would very much like what Florian proposes. Could it please be made
extensible so someone could add on other method and parameter meta-data they
found useful?