Named Parameters (Was: A nice way to step into 2012)

[Derek]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:48:57 +1100, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr at gmx.ch> wrote:

> Having parameter names contribute to the interface means that all  
> developers need to spend time thinking about the best possible names for  
> their function parameters.

And that's a bad thing, right?

Named parameters do have the issue that once released, it is can be costly  
to change the names. It therefore is important that library developers  
take enough time to consider parameter names, much in the same manner as  
they are currently consider existing exposed names.

To assist those developers, a name deprecation facility could be  
introduced to alert users of pending removal of old names. This would of  
course only be of interest to those developers who choose to use named  
parameters in their code.

There is a similar issue with positional parameters; once released, the  
library developer would be unwise to alter the order of parameters. But  
somehow, we have managed to educate ourselves so as to (mostly) avoid this  
problem.


In general, I'd support optional named parameters and would encourage  
their usage in those situations where it makes source code more  
understandable to other readers.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia