Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!usc!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!uw-entropy!mica!adrianb
From: adrianb@mica.stat.washington.edu (Adrian Baddeley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Named arguments?
Message-ID: <2195@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>
Date: 19 Aug 89 20:48:27 GMT
References: <2179@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> <6590229@hplsla.HP.COM> <3671@internal.Apple.COM> <7436@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: news@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu
Reply-To: adrianb@castor.ms.washington.edu
Organization: UW Statistics, Seattle
Lines: 25

>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.

	OK. I'm convinced: 
		named arguments are a bad idea,
		and are a relic of functional programming.
	The only remaining issue here for *interactive* languages
	is how to call the methods with a minimum of fuss/keystrokes.

	Thanks for your advice. 

	PS: where do I join FPA (Functional Programmers Anonymous) ?

----
adrianb@castor.ms.washington.edu	(until 21 august 1989)
Adrian Baddeley, visiting Department of Statistics GN-22,
University of Washington, Seattle WA 98195, USA.
	tel (U of W): +1 206 545-2617 / 543-7237