[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:46:53 +0000 |
[Moving reply to e-tangents.]
> > I would not object to using keyword arguments for functions
> > like that -- complex and cumbersome to use, and not used often.
>
> Well, than we pretty much agree 100% about keyword args.
+1.
Except maybe for the "not used often". Depends on the
"often" use. If used often without any keyword args (or
optional args, for that matter), what difference does it
make that the function _has_ keyword/optional args? By
definition and convention, such args are generally not
for the most common (the default) use case.
But the general point, I think, is that keyword (and
optional) args turn one function into a family of several,
and that can be useful. But the "base" function, called without such args, can
be just as convenient as if there
were no such args possible.
- RE: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core, Arthur Miller, 2023/09/14
- Re: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core, Emanuel Berg, 2023/09/15
- RE: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core, Drew Adams, 2023/09/15
- Re: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core, Emanuel Berg, 2023/09/16
- RE: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core, Drew Adams, 2023/09/16
- Re: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core, Emanuel Berg, 2023/09/17
- Re: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core, Yuri Khan, 2023/09/17
- Re: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core, Emanuel Berg, 2023/09/17
- RE: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core, Drew Adams, 2023/09/17
- Re: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core, Emanuel Berg, 2023/09/17