Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!apple!well!nagle
From: nagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Named arguments?
Message-ID: <13186@well.UUCP>
Date: 17 Aug 89 16:13:50 GMT
References: <612@windy.dsir.govt.nz> <2179@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> <30765@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Reply-To: nagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle)
Lines: 23

In article <30765@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> jac@muslix.UUCP (James Crotinger) writes:
> ... or the approach
>taken by REXX (and probably other languages) where you just use commas
>to delimit the missing arguments:
>
>        z = scatplot(x, y,, scale)
>
>Is there a good reason that one of these isn't used?

     When a large number of optional, positional arguments are allowed,
the call can get a bit painful.

	z = plot(x,y,,,,,,1,,,'c');

is not something one finds desirable.  This sort of thing is a curse of
some mainframe job control languages.  We don't want to bring it back.

     One major advantage of named, optional arguments, is that when it
becomes necessary to add a new feature to a package, or to delete an
unused one, all the callers of the package need not be revised.  Whatever
solution is chosen should definitely retain this property.

					John Nagle