From: "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...>
Date: 2005-10-24T13:12:01+09:00
Subject: Re: A comparison by example of keyword argument styles

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Trans wrote:

> That's nice, but then why would we need key args if we'd do this anyway?

that was my point ;-)  just wondering out loud how important lanuage support
greater than collecting open key/values pairs is...

>> From what I understand this isn't what will happen, but rather
>
>>    meth 42, foo : 42               #=> [ [42, {:foo => 42}], {:foo => 42} ]

eek!

>>    meth 42, 'foo' => 42, foo : 42  #=> Error

eeeeek!

>> i might add that i hope whatever keys object will hash key and symbol
>> arguments the same so we can do
>>
>>    val = keys['foo']
>> or
>>
>>    val = keys[:foo]
>>
>> i hate having to check for both (that's what getopt above does).
>
> Interesting point. Perhaps better then:
>
>  val = keys.foo

i do like

   verbose = keys.value_at(%w( verbose verbosity v )).first

eg - a hash interface.

> Would go even better with Evan's mixed parameter object.
>
>  def(*parms)
>    p parms
>    p parms.named
>    p parms.foo
>  end
>
>  foo( 1,2,foo:3 )
>  => [1,2]
>     {:foo=>3}
>     3

   harp:~ > cat a.rb
   require 'parseargs'
   include ParseArgs

   def meth *argv
     pa = parseargs(argv){ args %w( a b ) and kws %w( c d ) }
     p pa.arguments.map{|a| a.name}
     p pa.keywords.map{|k| k.name}
     p pa.a
     p pa.b
     p pa.c
     p pa.d
   end

   meth 4, 2, 'c' => 'forty', 'd' => 'two'


   harp:~ > ruby a.rb
   ["a", "b"]
   ["c", "d"]
   4
   2
   "forty"
   "two"


;-)

-a
-- 
===============================================================================
| email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
| phone :: 303.497.6469
| anything that contradicts experience and logic should be abandoned.
| -- h.h. the 14th dalai lama
===============================================================================