From: Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>
Date: 2003-09-08T07:48:58+09:00
Subject: Re: proposal for a named parameter prefix

Sean O'Dell wrote:
> 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.

I agree with Sean. The exception would be that the last
parameter can be a block as usual.

Hal