Referring to keyword arguments, matz said,

> How do you think the syntax is going to be?

I guess my biggest question is whether keywords should be part of the method
signature. To explain, from what I can tell (I'm not a Python guy), if you
specify keywords in Python they're just a way to make your code more
readable, so they're optional and they don't affect the method lookup. In
Smalltalk (and TOM, I gather) OTOH, the keywords actually make up the method
name, so Crowd#cheer: is a different method than Crowd#cheer:forTimes:.

Personally, I don't like the Python way very much... doesn't seem to add
enough, and just adds more typing. It seems that the Smalltalk/TOM way is
more useful, but I don't want to go to it exclusively. I don't know what the
(Ruby) syntax should be, but as functionality goes I think I'd like an
either/or: when defining a method, either you can use the current way (which
makes sense a lot of the time), or you can use the new keyword way. The
keywords would be part of the method signature, so to overwrite a method,
you'd have to match its keyword signature.

Can anybody think of a good syntax for this? Does it make sense to have two
distinct ways to def a method?


Nathaniel

<:((><
+ - -						+ - -
| RoleModel Software, Inc. &		| EQUIP VI
| The XP Software Studio(TM)		|