Re: Re: Passing by Named Parameter

I looked into it and it could do with some strengthening, but it's an excellent start.

Specific suggestions and/or patches should be sent to the module author (*cough*).

Comment on Re: Re: Passing by Named Parameter

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Passing by Named Parameter by John M. Dlugosz (Monsignor) on Jan 27, 2004 at 16:46 UTC
I think I'll take a close look at it. As for suggestions, I see that it has dependant parameters but not mutually-exclusive parameters. I wanted to get some replies before I put any effort into re-inventing anything, but my musings indicate that some possible features can be order-dependant, which is a problem with the use of a hash for a prototype. I'm also worried about slowing it down if it's too fancy! —John	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re: Passing by Named Parameter
by John M. Dlugosz (Monsignor) on Jan 27, 2004 at 16:46 UTC

As for suggestions, I see that it has dependant parameters but not mutually-exclusive parameters.

I wanted to get some replies before I put any effort into re-inventing anything, but my musings indicate that some possible features can be order-dependant, which is a problem with the use of a hash for a prototype. I'm also worried about slowing it down if it's too fancy!

—John

[reply]