On 31.12.2011 02:37, so wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:59:46 +0200, Jonathan M Davis
<jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote:
Introducing named arguments makes a function's parameters part of the
API and
introduces yet another point where code breakage can occur due to code
changes. And that is a _very_ negative aspect of named arguments IMHO.
Yes but luckily i think it is the only downside. You have to edit, if
you (or your boss) asked for.
Now only question is if it worths. Remembering all those cryptic
parameter passing cases i think it does.
And good thing is that it is an additive change to the language.
But if you're a library writer, and you change a parameter name, users
_will_ complain. In practice, this means you can't change them, even if
it was a really bad name.
I also find it interesting that at the same time as we're making
anonymous functions much easier to write, people want to remove the
ability to have anonymous parameters.
It isn't an additive change to the language. It reinterprets existing code.
