Ok, one argument (and procedures) now works:
/
#import
fun f(a:int)=> 3 * a;
println$ f 2;
println$ f (a=4);
fun g(x:struct {a:int;})=>9 * x.a;
println$ g (a=2);
/
NOTE:
Client Error binding expression (g struct {x=struct {a=
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 20:15 +1000, skaller wrote:
> Still .. you could just do that for function overload
> candidates one by one... hmm..
Actually, the biggest problem here is that any change which
records the defaults for a function, will require changing
the most commonly used terms in the com
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 00:51 -0700, Erick Tryzelaar wrote:
> On 9/20/07, skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now, actually I lied about 2^N: if we follow the C++/tuple technology,
> > then N defaults only makes N+1 functions (all args, the last one
> > cut off, the last 2 cut off, etc ..).
> >
>
On 9/20/07, skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Someday. I'm doing a bit of work on those os wrappers, and it'd really
> > simplify the interface :)
>
> The main issue is that a given function would have a SET of type
> signatures.
>
> I think overload resolution could handle that easily: instea
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 23:11 -0700, Erick Tryzelaar wrote:
> > You can't mix positional and named arguments.
> > I doubt this would make a lot of sense with overloading.
>
> You mean something like:
>
> fun f(a:int, b:int) = {...}
> f (1, b=2);
>
> ? Yeah, while I think it could be a useful
On 9/19/07, skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For functions you can now use named arguments.
Cool!
> Argument names contribute to overload resolution.
Also cool!
> Oh well:
>
> You can't mix positional and named arguments.
> I doubt this would make a lot of sense with overloading.
You m
For functions you can now use named arguments.
Argument names contribute to overload resolution.
//
#import
fun f(a:int, b:int)=> a + 2* b;
fun f(x:int, y:int)=> 2 * x + 5* y;
var d = f(b=1,a=2); // 4
println q"d=$(d)";
d = f(x=1,y=2); // 12
println q"d=$
