From: Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>
Date: 2005-11-18T22:00:21+09:00
Subject: Re: Keyword arguments like grandma makes 'em

Selon Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@gmail.com>:

>
> The reason I think symbols are appropriate as keys when calling a method
> with named parameters is that I believe symbols are *names*. Names of
> method, variables, attributes, etc. So when I type `foo :bar => "baz"',
> I'm calling the method `foo', setting the parameter named `bar' to the
> value of `baz' (even though I think the `=>' operator actually means
> "points to").
>
> This won't disallow for Matz' `foo bar: "baz"' style. Actually, I think
> the `key: value' should be added as a generic way of writing key/value
> pairs in a hash, where the key is a symbol (that seems to become the
> norm). These should mean the same:
>
>    connect :to => "example.com"
>    connect to: "example.com"
>
> And a normal hash:
>
>    {a: "foo", b: "bar", c: "baz"}
>    -> {:a => "foo", :b => "bar", :c => "baz"}
>

You don't need the "should". This very hash syntax has already been adopted for
Ruby2 (http://eigenclass.org/hiki.rb?Changes+in+Ruby+1.9#l4). And I bet it
influenced the current proposed syntax for named parameters. You can
immediately begin using methods that use hash arguments with the new syntax,
and then slowly refactor to use true named parameters, without having the
syntax changed.
--
Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.