http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7198
--- Comment #5 from Alex R�nne Petersen <xtzgzo...@gmail.com> 2012-01-02 06:41:35 PST --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (I don't actually know why we have unnamed parameters at all; most modern > > languages simply don't allow this. In addition, unused parameters in > > delegate/function literals/lambdas sort of seems to go against the entire > > idea > > with lambda functions, in the general case.) > > Useful situations for unnamed parameters: > > * Declaring a delegate type > > void delegate (int) dg; But that's a type signature, not a literal. > > * Declaring a function/method without implementation > > void foo (int); This, on the other hand, I do not like. Without a parameter name, you have to look at the implementation to have a clue what it means. That makes the declaration (more or less) useless. > > * Overriding/implementing a method where a parameter isn't needed > > class Foo { > abstract void foo (int a); > } > > class Bar : Foo { > void foo (int) {} > } > Point taken, though naming it _ or similar usually works. > > These are the situations I see it as might being useful but I would say that > adding names to the parameters adds documentation and that's always a good > thing. Agreed. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------