Mathieu Lafon <mla...@gmail.com> wrote, as part of a long thread...
>> I've been discussing the TIP #457 with Karl, and it seems to be taking>> things in a direction that doesn?t really address the intent of the>> FlightAware Tcl Bounty.>> Thanks for your feedback. I'm open for inputs by the Tcl community and> FlightAware to be able to define the most appropriate solution for> this use case. I understand you are not happy with my current> proposal. I just want to note that I have made several proposals and> tried to reach a consensus among the received feedback, suggestions> and critics. This may not be perfect and I will continue to work on> it.
I don't like one of the basic premises of the bounty item -- that
ordinary existing procs can be be invoked with named arguments,
even though the variable names used in the proc were never meant
to be part of an interface.
I think a much more productive project for Tcl would be to streamline
the definition of procs that specifically take named arguments (option
style).
PS: my preference for that is an optional third element in the proc
argument declaration. I'm unsure if the third "name" element should
be restricted to begin with "-", but probably not.
proc log { number {base 10 -base} } {
log 55.1
log -base 2 66.2
log 77.3 $e
Donald Arseneau, TRIUMF CMMS, a...@triumf.ca
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Tcl-Core mailing list
Tcl-...@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tcl-core