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
> 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
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
Gimp-developer mailing list