From: "Esteban Manchado Velázquez" <zoso@...>
Date: 2005-01-18T20:02:37+09:00
Subject: Re: Problems with Passive Arguments and refactoring

--W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi T,

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 11:09:16AM +0900, trans.  (T. Onoma) wrote:
> [...]
> |    Some hours later, I realized I had _not_ changed a couple of method
> | calls, so the method was receiving undefined arguments, and doing some
> | silly random thing until it crashed.
> [...]
> Not that you don't have a point. You do. But a number of things would cat=
ch=20
> errors "earlier" too, like static typing for example.

    Yes, but I don't find parameter number checking slows you down, while
static typing obviously does (at least in the short term).

    And I simply don't see the _advantage_ of not checking. If you need a
variable arguments method, simply declare it as that.

    Also, IMHO if you push the dynamic philosophy too much, it stops being
practical, because you put too much of a burden in the programmer (why the
_need_ of testing for almost anything?). My _personal_ balance is having the
language do things like parameter number checking, but allow more dynamic
behaviour in other things (like parameter type checking).

    Regards,

--=20
Esteban Manchado Vel=E1zquez <zoso@foton.es> - http://www.foton.es
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es

--W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB7OywhYgK5b1UDsERAp8YAJ4vrzGUcmL8fvRV5p4wwxd+UMGLYACfdxdp
aY8n6Q7rZRWatQdqR0eM51s=
=a6fq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA--