From: Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@...>
Date: 2007-06-27T05:51:31+09:00
Subject: Re: Named/positional method args

On 6/26/07, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Sacrifice a little duck-typiness for some arg-flippiness :)
> >
> > Yuck.
>
> Is the "formalist" in you disturbed by this?
>
> I think too many programmers feel that way too. See, I wonder when we
> ever are going to get past conforming to the requirements of our
> computer systems, and start having them conform to ours.

No.  What disturbs me about it is that it doesn't fit well with Ruby
best practices.  Though it might be useful for some cases, it is
likely to be abused, and annoying to deal with.

There are languages that I think benefit from static typing, Ruby to
me just isn't one of them.

Besides, the utility of what you suggested, being able to flip
arguments, is kind of weak, considering all the limitations it
imposes. I'd need to see a more compelling case for optional static
typing in Ruby before I could support it in any way.