Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!bionet!ames!apple!apple.com!arn From: arn@apple.com (Arn Schaeffer) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Named arguments? Message-ID: <3671@internal.Apple.COM> Date: 18 Aug 89 00:47:47 GMT Sender: usenet@Apple.COM Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. Lines: 18 References:<2179@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> <6590229@hplsla.HP.COM> In article <6590229@hplsla.HP.COM> jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) writes: > Instead, all those parameters and options should be represented in the > state of the underlying object, not represented a gigantic list of options > to one function. Options are invoked by calling a method, with perhaps > a parameter or two, to turn on that option. The option being turned on > is uniquely represented by the name of the method called -- not the name > of a named argument supplied to that option. Defaults are established > by the constructor to an object, so that optional methods need not be > called for standard usage. This could have severe implications if an object was shared by more than one process. In general, it seems that ephemeral information like parameters should not be part of the state of the object. Arnold Schaeffer arn@apple.com The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Apple Computer.