Le 27/02/2017 à 19:49, Tim Wescott a écrit :
You misread my comments. Tim _likes_ named parameters. If Tim were on
the C++ standards committee (which is as likely as pigs flying, BTW)
Tim would agitate that named parameters be adopted into that language.
Scilab, Verilog, and (I think) VHDL have it, and particularly in a
language that allows for optional parameters, I feel that when you have
to have function calls with more than a few parameters it vastly aids
code readability.
Sorry for my misinterpretation.
I agree that it is easier to use named parameters rather than to have to
count and feed many "empty" or default positions to reach useful
trailing ones. But when a parameter has been badly named when designing
the function (*), then it is done and over. We must bear it all the
time. And this is not nice at all.
Same thing when you want to add a parameter that has a meaning close to
another already existing one. Then keeping things (names) clear may
become hard. Moreover, things get more complicated when using varargin
(that ignores names).
(*) this is often the case. Scilab misses a standards committee, also to
well name things.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
