In article <200311241513.46381.ser / germane-software.com>,
  Sean E Russell <ser / germane-software.com> writes:

> "I don't know," because there isn't a good alternative to what I was trying to 
> do.  I'd probably get rid of, or hide from the users, the constructor hash 
> entirely, and force them to use methods.  I tell you, I've answered more 
> questions about the proper use of those stupid argument hashes than any other 
> single thing in REXML.  The thing is that it even confuses *me*, when I have 
> to go back and deal with it.

How it confuse you and REXML user?

> "Yes," because I hate the idea of breaking the old API, but on the other hand, 
> am dying to get ahold of named parameters.  REXML could really use named 
> parameters, which is obvious if you look at any of the sourcecode for the 
> nodal classes.
>
> I do have to say that this is the singularly unfortunate thing about Ruby 1.x 
> -- the lack of parametric method dispatching combined with the lack of named 
> parameters is a really caustic combination[1].  What you end up doing, as a 
> developer, is making these monolithic methods that take every possible 
> argument, and contain a huge case statement that tries to make sense of the 
> arguments.  It makes for really bad code, and it is unavoidable because 
> there's no other solution in Ruby except to use hashed parameters, which are 
> also problematic.  I'll be really happy when we get named parameters.

Is the problem dispatching code?
-- 
Tanaka Akira