> |> It's Python way, and I won't take it.
> |What don't you like about this approach? I'd like to know so that hopefully I can formulate an alternative you would like.
> |
> |My worry about Yusuke's current proposal is that it requires a Hash be allocated on the caller side to use the feature, which makes the usage of keyword arguments much more heavyweight than normal arguments. This in turn means people will either shy away from them or use them and complain that they're too slow (which could make ruby look bad).
> |
> | - Evan
>
> It could make argument parsing much heavyweight and difficult to
> predict, both user POV and implementation POV.    
> rules are very complex comparing to other parts of the language.


So your concern is that it would become too complicated if positional
parameters were also treated as keyword, is that right?

My concern with that is then "how do you specify a non optional
parameter by keyword?" (unless you accept Charles' proposal).
Thank you.
-roger-