Hi,
I've written a small module (at the moment called utils.keywordargs)
which simulates keyword arguments (aka named parameters). The
documentation can be found here,
http://xammy.xammy.homelinux.net/~xammy/utils_keywordargs.html
while the code is at
http://xammy.xammy.homelinux.net/~xammy/key
Hi, It seems these links are unavailable now:
http://xammy.xammy.homelinux.net/~xammy/utils_keywordargs.html
http://xammy.xammy.homelinux.net/~xammy/keywordargs.d
Matthias Walter:
> I've written a small module (at the moment called utils.keywordargs)
> which simulates keyword arguments (aka named parameters). The
> documentation can be found here,
Regardless the implementation quality of your code, I wait for the real thing
:-)
Bye,
bearophile
On 3/19/12, Matthias Walter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've written a small module (at the moment called utils.keywordargs)
> which simulates keyword arguments (aka named parameters).
Cool. A small tip (in case you didn't already know):
You can use allSatisfy from std.typetuple when checking a single
cons
On 03/19/2012 08:21 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 3/19/12, Matthias Walter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've written a small module (at the moment called utils.keywordargs)
>> which simulates keyword arguments (aka named parameters).
>
> Cool. A small tip (in case you didn't already know):
>
> You can
On 03/19/2012 07:53 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Matthias Walter:
>
>> I've written a small module (at the moment called utils.keywordargs)
>> which simulates keyword arguments (aka named parameters). The
>> documentation can be found here,
>
> Regardless the implementation quality of your code, I wai
Matthias Walter:
> I understand "the real thing" as a language implementation of keyword
> arguments instead of a library "workaround", right?
Right. Even if your code is good, named arguments are a feature that needs to
be built-in, or it will not happen. Creative usage of the language has its
On 3/20/12 7:14 AM, bearophile wrote:
Matthias Walter:
I understand "the real thing" as a language implementation of
keyword arguments instead of a library "workaround", right?
Right. Even if your code is good, named arguments are a feature that
needs to be built-in, or it will not happen. Cr
Andrei Alexandrescu:
I think we're very far away from them.
What do you mean? Do you mean that Matthias Walter's
implementation is very far from being a good enough
implementation of named
arguments? :-)
(I have not said that named arguments are necessary. I have said
that I think it's not
On 20-03-2012 17:01, bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
I think we're very far away from them.
What do you mean? Do you mean that Matthias Walter's
implementation is very far from being a good enough implementation of named
arguments? :-)
(I have not said that named arguments are necessa
Andrei Alexandrescu:
bearophile:
> > Right. Even if your code is good, named arguments are a feature that
> > needs to be built-in, or it will not happen. Creative usage of the
> > language has its limits.
>
> I think we're very far away from them.
With a less sleepy brain I understand, your "th
11 matches
Mail list logo
