From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2002-08-08T20:45:37+09:00
Subject: Re: Named paramters again

> On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:19:10 +0200, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>
>> Sorry if I'm being closed-minded, but why is "insertElement"
>> preferable to "insert", and why is "f:arg1 arg2" preferable to
>> "f(arg1, arg2)"?
>
> insertElement:at: is self-documenting; that is, just by looking at the
> method name I can more or less know what the method does and what kind
> of argument it takes. In Objective-C, this is a big pro when it comes
> to dealing with complex libraries such as WebObjects or Enterprise
> Objects, because you don't have to constantly browse the documentation
> just to understand what a piece of code does. I was a WebObjects
> developer for 2 years and I *know* that Objective-C's method-naming
> notation is "A Good Thing". The downside is that you can end up with
> rather long method names.

Hmm... interesting.  I wouldn't mind playing with some of this good stuff.

> Where does "f:arg1 arg2" come from? This is not what I proposed.
> If you want named parameters with a syntax like f(arg1, arg2) you
> end up with Python's solution or something like it, and I don't
> find it particularly attractive.

I was simplifying by removing the element names.  Translating from your
example to my synopsis: "element" -> arg1; at:5 -> arg2.  Doesn't matter
anymore; we understand each other.

> Actually, what I'm proposing is *not* the introducion of named
> parameters, but rather a different method naming convention having the
> side effect of emulating named parameters (maybe my English is betraying
> me here, please forgive me :-)

No, you're quite clear.  It's your computer language background that
betrays you, just like mine betrays me.  Viva la BASIC!  (kidding)

> --
> ste

Gavin