From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2005-08-03T00:28:44+09:00
Subject: Re: different order of parameters...

Hi,

In message "Re: different order of parameters..."
    on Tue, 2 Aug 2005 22:22:23 +0900, Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> writes:

|> No. Keyword arguments like 
|>
|>    fun(b:20, a:10)
|>
|> is planned, but named keyword arguments will be separated from
|> positional arguments still.
|
|To what extend will these be checked?
|
|I.e., if I have a method
|
|  def foo(argone: 3, argtwo: 42); end
|
|What will happen when I call
|
|  foo(bleh: nil) ?

It's not settled but I guess nothing will happen, just like we had
&allow-other-keys a la CommonLisp, just because "super" may accept
more keywords.  I would like to provide some scheme to check invalid
keywords like you mentioned, but not yet have had a good idea.

|(and btw, can one write  foo bleh: nil?)

I'm not suer how "foo bleh: nil?" means.  If it means to check whether
a keyword is given by the caller, you can accept a keyword hash by

  foo(**keys)

then check if there's "bleh" in it.

							matz.