From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2005-02-01T22:45:49+09:00
Subject: Re: Default values for block parameters


"Matt Mower" <matt.mower@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d563731905020103585443f29a@mail.gmail.com...
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 18:27:28 +0900, Mark Hubbart <discordantus@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:10:50 +0900, Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net >
wrote:
> > > > Since this workaround is a touch unaesthetic I wonder whether
there
> > > > was a particular reason for not allowing default values to be
> > > > specified for block parameters?  Do you happen to know?
> > >
> > > Dunno, but here's my guess: since blocks are usually called at a
single
> > > place in code (as opposed to a method) default parameters do not
make much
> > > sense generally.
> >
> > I think that's a good assessment... I think historically, they may
> > have been considered superfluous. But it could change in the future;
> > with the addition of &block syntax in a block's parameter list
> > (available now, in 1.9, and later, in 2.0), it might be that block
> > parameter lists are going to be made more consistent with method
> > parameter lists.

Even more so if you view blocks / lambdas as nameless functions, which you
can with some justification.

> Robert, Mark, thanks for your views.  That was really helpful.

You're welcome!

Kind regards

    robert