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 p
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 r
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
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 pr
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 id
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
