On Jan 13, 2006, at 14:29, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Below are some thoughts, syntax mainly, how it could look like.
And now a bit of named arguments passing semantics.
0. Call and return are symmetric, I'll use function call here, because
it's more commonly used with named. (Arguments are
Below are some thoughts, syntax mainly, how it could look like.
leo
Proposal: Named Arguments
pdd03 is already mentioning named arguments, but a concrete syntax
is still missing, as well as how it could work.
First a snippet of the proposed syntax:
.sub named_test :main
.local pmc a, b, c
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 14:29 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Proposal: Named Arguments...
Your proposal covers all the functionality that I need for Amber,
thanks.
b = new .Integer
c = 3
I'm sure everyone realised, but just for the sake of completeness: the
first identifier above should
On 1/13/06, Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Below are some thoughts, syntax mainly, how it could look like.
Proposal: Named Arguments
[snip proposal]
Comments welcome,
leo
it's not stated explicitly in your proposal, but what is the proper
location for named params in a sub call
jerry gay wrote:
it's not stated explicitly in your proposal, but what is the proper
location for named params in a sub call? i expect something like
named arguments must follow all positional (required and optional)
arguments in a sub or method call.
You pass arguments to a function. That
Roger Browne wrote:
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 14:29 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Proposal: Named Arguments...
Your proposal covers all the functionality that I need for Amber,
thanks.
Great.
Leo, would you be so kind as to rescind the parameter passing error
flags, and make mismatches
