On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:27:04AM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 07:48:59PM -0800, Manish Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So what would be a good way for perl to support both named and positional
> > stuff?
> It simply shouldn't. It should either do positional where it is useful
> and named where it is useful. Or always named. Everything else (like a
> hashref) is just madness and should be handled by a different interface
> (call_procedure_hashref...).
> Please note that it doesn't make _any_ sense to have 100% named parameters
> for the majority of functions (e.g. all fucntions having an image, or
> layer etc. as leading arguments, as these should be handled using method
> syntax).

No, but it's nice to be flexible and have the option of doing things
with method syntax or procedural syntax. Isn't an important Perl
motto TMTOWTDI? :)

Perhaps the OO syntax should always expect named parameters, but non-OO
syntax should offer both in some fashion, like a hashref, or some sort
of marker to say "named parameters start here".

> Most languages share this problem, so it would be interetsing how this
> would be solved in C for example (probably using a different interface).

Python supports positional and named arguments natively, and we've
talked about workable solutions in Scheme.

In C it's a pain in the ass to call PDB functions at all, so no big
deal to have two interfaces. But I'd like to do better in more
dynamic languages.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to