If it is your stance that they can have no value, ...To exclude possibility is to limit oneself, to blindly accept is to subjugate ones mind, to explore is to learn.
I'll just point out that I said: "There *is* utility in using named parameters for sub/methods that (usefully) take large numbers of optional parameters..
There is a product called PowerKeeper that implements a ... the AddSystem API ... There are 47 options
And that "47 options" is as close to the perfect fit for "take large numbers of optional parameters." as I have ever seen.
In reply to Re^7: How should named paramater keys be named?
by BrowserUk
in thread How should named paramater keys be named?
by davido
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |