>>>>> Conrad Schneiker wrote:

    > Jon Babcock wrote:

    >> Should the explanation read, "Output the parameters
    >> sequentially." or "Output the arguments sequentially."  Or does
    >> it matter?

    > Some apparently common usage from the Oracle at Google:

    > http://www.cygnus.com/misc/wp/dec96pub/over.html

    > When an overloaded function name is used in a call, which
    > overloaded function declaration is being referenced is
    > determined by comparing the types of the arguments at the point
    > of use with the types of the parameters in the overloaded
    > declarations that are visible at the point of use.

    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/welcome/dsmsdn/deep07062000.htm

    > When evaluating the relative closeness of a candidate overload,
    > your compiler converts the caller's argument and return types to
    > the candidate's parameter and return types.

This tends to confirm my original impression that English uses
'parameters' in the context of declaring a function and 'arguments' in
the context of calling a function. 

Turning to the Camel Book (March 1992), at page 204, I find:

"If the example contains words in italic, then those words are
'parameters'.  You don't type these words in (even if you have a fancy
terminal that can do italics), but instead look at the section
immediately following where each parameter is described.  You must **
replace the italicized words with real variable names and text strings
** and whatever else the recipe calls for." [Emphasis mine.]

As far as Ruby Book, ch2 goes, I think I have it pretty well nailed
down now, thanks to all your help.  The problem arose as I noticed
that the translator used 'parameter/s' everywhere for  
(J. hikisuu), except for one or two places, and that looked a little
strange to me, although in three or four instances it did seem to
fit. So I needed some expert advice. Thanks again.

Jon

-- 
Jon Babcock <jon / kanji.com>