this is almost a workaround for the lack of named parameters

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-03-26 10:31, renoX wrote:

> Interesting, the "doesn't not support passing the arguments out of
> order." can be seen either as a (temporary or not) implementation
> limitation OR as a feature.

I would guess it was easier. At least the change is very small. Smaller 
that I would have imagined.

> The things to check is how this feature would work with optional
> parameters..

Good point.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg