"KennyTM~" <kenn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:it8f4s$1gve$1...@digitalmars.com... > On Jun 15, 11 00:45, so wrote: >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:18:09 +0300, KennyTM~ <kenn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> loc.x on the caller side, it has no idea about function signature, and >>>> you don't know if it was 10th or 2nd argument in function. >>>> >>>> // definition >>>> fun(int x, int y) { >>>> } >>>> >>>> // call >>>> fun(x, y) // you need to check the definition if you think something >>>> wrong with parameters the second time you come here >>>> fun(y, x) // same >>>> fun(x:x, y:y) // you know there is nothing wrong with parameters >>>> fun(y:y, x:x) // same >>>> >>> >>> If you have no idea about the function signature, you have no idea >>> about the parameter names either. >> >> I think you are just resisting here, if you write a call once with named >> arguments, you documented it in place, the next time you visit this call >> all you need to see is in the call site. >> > > I'm just bringing up the fact. Why would you need to check the function > signature when reading > > MoveWindow(hWnd, loc.x, loc.y, myWin.width, myWin.height, > bRepaint:true); > > ? It's clear what each argument does.
Because it might be wrong. > If you feel the need of duplicating the same information, fine, write > > MoveWindow(hWnd:hWnd, X:loc.x, Y:loc.y, > nWidth:myWin.width, nHeight:myWin.height, bRepaint:true); > > in your code. But don't make it mandatory, it's a waste of time and space > when the writer just wants to clarify that 'true' is a bRepaint. > I don't think anyone suggested named arguments should be manditory.
