[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Keyword args

From: Helmut Eller
Subject: Re: Keyword args
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:30:35 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

* Daniel Colascione [2010-12-13 02:10] writes:

> On 12/10/10 12:53 AM, Helmut Eller wrote:
>> * Daniel Colascione [2010-12-10 07:42] writes:
>>> On 12/7/10 8:30 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>>> David Kastrup writes:
>>>>  > I don't think anybody minds the features.
>>>> IIRC rms has recently declared his dislike for CL-style keyword
>>>> arguments.  I suppose that's part of the "syntactic complexity" you
>>>> mention, but MON KEY OTOH points out cases where he'd like to use
>>>> them.  So there are some fundamental disagreements here.
>>> I'd just like to add my support for keyword arguments. Functions like
>>> write-region are both horrible and brittle because their parameters are
>>> both numerous and overloaded; specific functionality can be more simply
>>> expressed with using keyword arguments. 
>> You always have the option to make a macro with keyword arguments which
>> expands to a call to the "raw" function.
> How many forwarder macros do you need to sufficiently cover the problem
> space? Combinatorial explosion is a problem when the set of possible
> inputs is large.

Exactly as many macros as you would be need keyword argument parsing
functions.  Whether keywords are used for functions or macros makes no
difference to cover the "problem space" (which I presume is a better
interface to write-region).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]