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