From: Louis J Scoras <louis.j.scoras@...>
Date: 2005-10-25T05:51:06+09:00
Subject: Re: A comparison by example of keyword argument styles

------=_Part_433_5123122.1130187065139
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 10/24/05, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Widdle it:


*agrees*

def foo( required :bar, :baz ; optional :request=3D>'useless' ; named
> :side, :meat=3D>'fish' )
>
> def foo( bar, baz ; optional :request=3D>'useless' ; named :side,
> :meat=3D>'fish' )
>

That one is very much like the lisp defun if I'm not mistaken.

def foo( bar, baz, request=3D'useless', keys: side, meat=3D>'fish' )
>
> def foo( bar, baz, request=3D'useless', side=3D>nil, meat=3D>'fish' )


That looks reasonable. What's wrong with that? In the calling code it
wouldn't be ambiguous because there's: a fixed number of required
parameters; optional parameters come after the required ones, and any
keywords are specified with '=3D>' as they are currently.

Why are keyword parameters needed anyway? Is there a problem with the
implicit hash?


--
Lou

------=_Part_433_5123122.1130187065139--