[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Superfluous actual arguments
* From: Marc Feeley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
| On 14-Apr-06, at 8:47 PM, soo wrote:
>> | Unfortunately, if you add a rest parameter to foo (and bar)
>> | the error checking is lost. Good error checking is
>> | important in the case of named parameters because you want
>> | to catch any misspelling of the parameters.
>> Can the exception for superfluous arguments be allowed because
>> of that? If default value is taken because of misspelling of
>> the parameter, it is programmer's responsibility. I don't
>> understand why superfluous arguments are allowed in spite of
>> absence of rest parameter.
| I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say.
| I'm guessing that you would like a duplicate parameter to be an error. I
| expect erroneously duplicated parameters to be much less frequent than
| misspelled parameters, and that it is easier to find that there is an
| erroneously duplicated parameter. On the other hand there is a use case for
| duplicate parameters, as I explained in my previous message. Moreover this
| is how Common Lisp and DSSSL handle duplicate parameters (i.e. it is not
| considered an error). I'm not trying to innovate here. Since one of the
| goals of this SRFI is to be compatible with DSSSL when possible, the only
| deviation would have to be motivated by a significant issue. I don't find
| that's the case here.
I overlooked the sentence, "It is an error if the parameter name is not the
same as a variable in a <keyword formal>.".
Thank you for kind reply.