On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Damian Conway wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> > Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of
> > positionals and named.  We could allow named at the beginning or end
> > but still keep a constraint that all positionals must occur together
> > in one zone.
> If losing the magic from =>'d pairs isn't buying us named args wherever we
> like, why are we contemplating it?

I've lost track of the score in this thread, but I thought I would throw
a couple pennies into the fountain.

I really dread the thought of losing C< name => value > for named
parameters.  Off the top of my head, ADA, PL/SQL, and php all use that
syntax, so it would be a shame to lose something that newbies might find

On the other hand I would like it if the adverbial named parameter
style C< :name(value) > were allowed at the begining as well as the end of
the parameter list.  I think adverbs read better when they are next to the
verbs they modify, and I would be nice if I didn't have to resort to macro
magic to get them there.

Mixing named and positionals is bad though.

~ John Williams

Reply via email to