On Sun, 15 May 2005 11:59:04 +0200 Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:49:34AM -0400, Adam wrote: > > First of all, that's not a benefit. In most languages you can have > > optional arguments to functions, without forcing all functions to > > take only a single array of scalar variables. > > You know, maybe you should read perl documentation. No, I am well aware of prototypes. That's what "then using an ugly hack to try to work around the problem instead of just fixing it" is. Prototypes in perl don't actually solve all the problems, and of course: "Method calls are not influenced by prototypes". > In perl you can have optional arguments to functions. This happened a > few years ago. This is called prototypes, and it works just fine. I never said otherwise. I said you can have optional args in lots of other languages too, as Jason seemed to think @_ allows optional args, while languages using named args don't. Adam
