From: Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@...>
Date: 2005-11-18T22:12:18+09:00
Subject: Re: Keyword arguments like grandma makes 'em

Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
Jolly-good then!