(Again, moving to emacs-tangents@gnu.org.) > Agreed, it is better with keyword arguments than > a long list of nils because of optional arguments. > > But it is better yet to not have the functions take so many > arguments in the first place, but to split them up and have > the function name be more specific what is going to happen.
Not necessarily. It depends - on context, how often each combination is used, and even user preferences. With 10 different functions, instead of one, to represent a "family" of functions, users can wonder "Which should I use?". The problem introduced then is finding good function names and specifying, in the doc of each (or in some "family" doc) just what the differences are, and how they can (or can't) be used together. IOW, it can make sense to use a "family" name and keywords, with a single explanation of the keywords, together. A single explanation lets you address what combinations make sense etc. Happily, if keywords are at least available (possible) in the language, you have a choice of which approach to use. Nothing _requires_ you to define a function with keyword args, instead of defining separate functions (up to N-factorial of them!).