From: Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@...>
Date: 2007-07-19T04:21:23+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby suggestion feedback

Here's another thought.  Who would vote for this?
"rescue => detail" catching Exception by default


unknown wrote:
> Hi --
> 
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Roger Pack wrote:
> 
>> function_x(3,4,true,true,1,true,false) # does anyone after 3 months
>> remember what each of those MEANT? [note the true,false at the
>> end--those were my "failure" and "options," from the first example].
>> I'm not saying Ruby is bad, just that this would be better.
>>
>> Any thoughts?  Should I RCR it?
> 
> All this stuff (argument syntax and semantics, keyword arguments,
> etc.) is very much on the radar already.  I don't think there's
> anything to be gained by submitting an RCR for one particular version
> of it.  In 1.9 you've got hash shortcuts and possibly other things
> already coming:
> 
>    x(failure: true, options: false, ...)
> 
> (May not be a working example but that's the kind of thing.)
> 
> 
> David


-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.