[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core

From: Emanuel Berg
Subject: Re: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 10:43:08 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)

João Távora wrote:

> Many other functions with a large amount of optional
> arguments (completing-read comes to mind) would be much,
> much easier to use with keyword arguments. Without them, we
> find ourselves wondering about how many nils to sprinkle
> before the argument we want to pass.

Agreed, it is better with keyword arguments than a long list
of nils because of optional arguments.

But it is better yet to not have the functions take so many
arguments in the first place, but to split them up and have
the function name be more specific what is going to happen.

Sometimes this just doesn't happen, it's life and I have
a hard time seeing any situation (long list of nils for
optional arguments vs. keywords) being a real problem
to anyone?

underground experts united

reply via email to

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