> IDL does this and it's a pain for most situations, for instance
> 
> def foo a, b
>    bar( ... )
> end
> 
> def bar b, a
> end
> 
> foo a : 4, b : 2
> 
> now foo has to have a method to return the named vars to bar, kinda
> like *argv, but much more sophisticated, drastically reducing the
> ability the sling around arrays and hashes in methods, especially for
> method forwarding.  then there is the issue of required vs optional
> parameters...  and code like this
> 
>    def foo options = {}
>      add_defaults_to options
>      bar options
>    end
> 
> etc

Yeah it definitely would reduce the ability to have ones own ending 
hash.
That being said, you can always just pass on arguments in the standard 
way, a la

def foo(a, b)
  bar(a, b)
end

But how that would interplay with *args, I don't know.

My recommendation would be to be able to specify which methods have 
named arguments, so you know to expect them, and how to deal with them.
Thoughts?


:)
-R

> 
> basically i've personally found languages with real named parameters
> leaving me wishing they were simply hash based.  my 2 cts.
> 
> a @ http://codeforpeople.com/

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.