Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!husc6!ogccse!blake!uw-beaver!uw-entropy!queets!adrianb
From: adrianb@queets.stat.washington.edu (Adrian Baddeley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Named arguments?
Message-ID: <2179@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>
Date: 15 Aug 89 16:38:40 GMT
References: <612@windy.dsir.govt.nz>
Sender: news@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu
Reply-To: adrianb@castor.ms.washington.edu
Organization: UW Statistics, Seattle
Lines: 28

In article <612@windy.dsir.govt.nz> Robert writes:
>This is to support Doug Lea's proposal for "named return values". I
>don't want to comment on the specific syntax he proposed - simply to say
>we need a better way of getting objects back from functions.

	Also, what about named arguments?

	If we ever get a C++ interpreter, we could have problems
	in calling functions with lots of arguments.
	
	Interactive statistical packages (like 'S') use
	named arguments, e.g.

		z <- scatplot(x, y, scale=3)

	Here `scatplot' could be a function that makes a scatter plot object
	from the vectors x and y; it would be sensible to have zillions
	of options, 
		scatplot(x,y,aspect,scale,xtitle,ytitle,xmargin,ymargin,etc..)
	the options need sensible defaults of course.

	Is there a better solution??

----
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