Flag proposal

[Nick Sabalausky]

"KennyTM~" <kennytm at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:it8f4s$1gve$1 at digitalmars.com...
> On Jun 15, 11 00:45, so wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:18:09 +0300, KennyTM~ <kennytm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> loc.x on the caller side, it has no idea about function signature, and
>>>> you don't know if it was 10th or 2nd argument in function.
>>>>
>>>> // definition
>>>> fun(int x, int y) {
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> // call
>>>> fun(x, y) // you need to check the definition if you think something
>>>> wrong with parameters the second time you come here
>>>> fun(y, x) // same
>>>> fun(x:x, y:y) // you know there is nothing wrong with parameters
>>>> fun(y:y, x:x) // same
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you have no idea about the function signature, you have no idea
>>> about the parameter names either.
>>
>> I think you are just resisting here, if you write a call once with named
>> arguments, you documented it in place, the next time you visit this call
>> all you need to see is in the call site.
>>
>
> I'm just bringing up the fact. Why would you need to check the function 
> signature when reading
>
>     MoveWindow(hWnd, loc.x, loc.y, myWin.width, myWin.height,
>                bRepaint:true);
>
> ? It's clear what each argument does.

Because it might be wrong.


> If you feel the need of duplicating the same information, fine, write
>
>     MoveWindow(hWnd:hWnd, X:loc.x, Y:loc.y,
>                nWidth:myWin.width, nHeight:myWin.height, bRepaint:true);
>
> in your code. But don't make it mandatory, it's a waste of time and space 
> when the writer just wants to clarify that 'true' is a bRepaint.
>

I don't think anyone suggested named arguments should be manditory.