> -----Original Message-----
> From: Louis J Scoras [mailto:louis.j.scoras / gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 2:51 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: A comparison by example of keyword argument styles
> 
> 
> On 10/24/05, Trans <transfire / gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Widdle it:
> 
> 
> *agrees*
> 
> def foo( required :bar, :baz ; optional :request=>'useless' ; named
> > :side, :meat=>'fish' )
> >
> > def foo( bar, baz ; optional :request=>'useless' ; named :side, 
> > :meat=>'fish' )
> >
> 
> That one is very much like the lisp defun if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> def foo( bar, baz, request='useless', keys: side, meat=>'fish' )
> >
> > def foo( bar, baz, request='useless', side=>nil, meat=>'fish' )
> 
> 
> That looks reasonable. What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with making them all implicit instead of forcing me to add
this extra, ugly syntax?

People that support explicit syntax for keyword arguments in method
definitions shall be damned to the committee that combs over every
single method in the core and standard library and figures out which
parameters will support keywords and which ones won't.  They will also
be responsible for explaining their rationale to the rest of us, and
dealing with all subsequent arguments that result.  They will ALSO be
relegated to answering all future emails from newbies wondering why some
parameters support keywords and some don't.

Regards,

Dan