From: "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...[REMOVE_THE_SPAM]>
Date: 2003-09-08T06:56:48+09:00
Subject: Re: proposal for a named parameter prefix

Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote in message news:<200309071005.h87A5o4D004546@sharui.nakada.kanuma.tochigi.jp>...
> 
>>>To summerize, "%" gets us two things
>>>
>>>  (1) a nice signal to let everyone know a named parameter hash is
>>>      there
>>>
>>>  (2) the ability to mix variable-length arguments with named
>>>      parameters (in a nice way)
>>
>>IIRC, matz has thought ** for it.
> 
> 
> Can you give a link to this discussion?  I haven't been able to find
> it on google, rubygarden, etc.

If it's possible, I would prefer that Ruby DOESN'T get another 
#$%^-style idiosyncracy added.  Why can't named parameters just go 
something like this:

     def method(param1)
     end

     method(:param1 = "value")

....and just accept parameters as normal, except when the first named 
parameter is encountered, assume the remaining parameters sent from a 
call are out-of-order and will also be named parameters.  In other 
words, handle it transparently to the method, backwards-compatible with 
existing code and without a new non-letter-character being used to 
denote a syntax idiom.

	Sean O'Dell