From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-10-21T20:22:29+09:00
Subject: Re: A comparison by example of keyword argument styles

Hi --

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Daniel Berger wrote:

> Brian Mitchell wrote:
>> Hello fellow rubyists,
>
> <snip>
>
>> Sydney's argument scheme (s_ henceforth) is simple when you want to
>> reorder the arguments.
>>
>> def s_f1(a,b,c) ... end
>> s_f1(b:2, a:1, c:3)
>>
>> Matz's scheme (m_ from now on) allows this too:
>>
>> def m_f1(a:,b:,c:) ... end
>> m_f1(b:2, a:1, c:3)
>>
>> Ok. Not much difference right away no clear winner.
>
> Ruby has always favored implicitness over explicitness.  The fact that
> I don't have to do anything explicitly in Sydney makes it the winner
> IMHO.

I don't agree.  If I write this:

   def meth(a,b,c) ... end

I expect to be "allowed" to rename my parameters at will without
breaking any calling code.  I'd even expect to be allowed to change,
say, (a,b,*c) to *args if I felt there was a good reason to.

I don't want my choice of local variable names to be coupled to
calling code.  If I offer keywords or hash keys, that means I've
decided that I *do* want to publish those names, and commit to them.
Otherwise I consider them strictly the method's business, not the
caller's.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net