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 familiar. 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
