This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 89 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 89 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On 4/13/06, Eli Barzilay <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > [Please skip this paragraph.] > [Yes, I know that you're not contradicting your own argument. I just > don't think that you're not not contradicting your own argument > strongly enough for me to not say that you're contradicting your own > argument. (And I'm not contradicting myself in this sentence.)] > [Just ignore the above.] > Oh, how exceptionally witty you are, Eli! Charming. Not exactly a Will Clinger, but you're getting better. > > > But this is getting boring, [...] > > Right -- so there's this useful bit of functionality that just must be > implemented over and over and over again. If I lower my music for a > second I can actually hear the c.l.l folks laugh. The c.l.l folks? Oh, they are just trying to understand why nobody uses their wonderful language (and they are still not getting it - I invite you to think about it). Perhaps it's a matter with the keyword arguments, who knows? > > > > Configuration-objects could be composed, inherited, modified by > > accessors, whatever. I claim such an interface is cleaner, possibly > > less verbose and likely to be more efficient. > > And so we get to the point where you give me an example that I > explicitly talked about why it doesn't work. No, you were describing optional arguments. That is different from a (Hint: single) optional configuration object. > Hint: the summary was > that while this is possible, I've never seen real code that uses it Well, I *have* seen real code that uses _configuration objects_ (assuming we are talking about the same thing, but that assumpton may be wrong), but perhaps I have just seen more code that was good for me... Anyway, next question? cheers, felix