* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-19 02:10]:
> On 7/17/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Had they been named parameters, we wouldn't be having this
> >discussion.
>
> is got => 'foo', expected => 'bar', description => 'foo is bar';
>
> is 'foo', 'bar', 'foo is bar';
>
> When you plan to use a function thousands of times, brevity is
> nice. Same reason its "ok" and "is" and not "assert" and
> "assert_eq_string".
I know. That’s why I said it would have been nice if the
interface had been planned out that way from the start. Then I’d
cast your example like so:
is 'foo', 'bar', msg => 'foo is bar';
The extra `msg =>` is not too painful, I think, and it would
allow things like `skip` which are relatively uncommon to then
work thusly:
skip n => 2, msg => "Don't feel like it today";
There’s no way to mix up the parameters with that interface.
Ambiguities could easily be avoided for things like `can_ok`
which can take lists for one “logical parameter” by always taking
them as an arrayref.
It’s nosier than the current interface, but just slightly, and it
would make the API a lot more regular.
But we don’t get to fix it now; hopefully for Perl 6.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
