Bryan Duxbury wrote: > I would say that there's no question it would be useful. However, I'm > not sure how that would translate to all client languages. > > A completely safe and reliable way to simulate this would be to make a > new struct for your method that has optional fields and just use that as > the only parameter to the method. Does that make sense?
Yes, i'm already doing this and it works great. The only two drawbacks is that you end up with a lot of structs if you have lots of functions with optional parameters, and of course the client API is not as simple and straightforward to use. -- Matthieu
