>  I've the strange impression that you want named parameter only for user
>  defined methods. If I have named parameter, I expect also to have named
>  parameters for *all* methods of ruby

The idea was that it wasn't a language change as such, just a way of passing
named parameters if thats how you chose to build your interface.

If you want your interface to be compact:

    a_method( x, y )

If your interface needs to be more descriptive:

    a_method width: 20, height: 40, name: "Fred"

You choose.

--
Justin Johnson.

"ts" <decoux / moulon.inra.fr> wrote in message
news:200207301605.g6UG5kN22428 / moulon.inra.fr...
> >>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan / atdesk.com> writes:
>
> P> What about leaving the current API as is, and adding new methods to the
> P> API that support named parameters (perhaps one method to "name" the
> P> parameters and another to call methods using named parameters)?
>
>  This is not the problem. When you write an extension, you use the same
API
>  than ruby. If you change the API, you must completely change the source
>  of ruby.
>
>  I've the strange impression that you want named parameter only for user
>  defined methods. If I have named parameter, I expect also to have named
>  parameters for *all* methods of ruby
>
>
>
> Guy Decoux
>
>
>