Associative parameters

[Bill Baxter]

Greg wrote:
> Walter Wrote:
> 
>> "Sefan Zobel" <Sefan_member at pathlink.com> wrote in message
>> news:d9n5i9$aad$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>>> In article <d9lnrr$26q3$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Chris Sauls says...
>>>> In python, you would do something like this:
>>>>
>>>> # foo (
>>>> #   x = someX ,
>>>> #   y = someY ,
>>>> #   z = someZ
>>>> #   )
>>>>
>>>> Now isn't that just nifty?
>>>
>>> This is also called "named parameters" in some languages (since parameters
>>> are resolved by name, not by position). And, yes, I like it too :)
>> Named parameters are problematic when overloading is thrown into the mix.
>>
>>
> What is problematic? I used named parameters with Ada and I'm not aware of any problems with it.
> In addition to making the code easier to read, named parameters avoid the burden of creating "dummy" functions when some parameters are optional.
> I found nothing on the net telling that python's or ada's implementation of named parameters is problematic.
> Can someone confirm/infirm on this point?

I don't know about Ada, but Python doesn't have function overloading.
A given module can only have one function called 'foo'.

But I do recall reading an essay/rant somewhere talking about how 
sometimes just picking one way to do something makes life easier for 
everyone, and the handling of function overloading was mentioned.  I 
think it mentioned Ada's way and Python's way specifically. 
Unfortunately I can't seem to find it now.

--bb