On 2017-02-27 11:18, Samuel Gougeon wrote:
Le 27/02/2017 à 19:49, Tim Wescott a écrit :
You misread my comments. Tim _likes_ named parameters. If Tim were
on
the C++ standards committee (which is as likely as pigs flying, BTW)
Tim would agitate that named parameters be adopted into that language.
Scilab, Verilog, and (I think) VHDL have it, and particularly in a
language that allows for optional parameters, I feel that when you
have
to have function calls with more than a few parameters it vastly aids
code readability.
Sorry for my misinterpretation.
I agree that it is easier to use named parameters rather than to have
to count and feed many "empty" or default positions to reach useful
trailing ones. But when a parameter has been badly named when
designing the function (*), then it is done and over. We must bear it
all the time. And this is not nice at all.
Same thing when you want to add a parameter that has a meaning close
to another already existing one. Then keeping things (names) clear may
become hard. Moreover, things get more complicated when using varargin
(that ignores names).
(*) this is often the case. Scilab misses a standards committee, also
to well name things.
Yet even knowing all of that, and agreeing with most of it I would still
vote for named parameters. Even with the difficulties around varargin.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@lists.scilab.org
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
