Re: Superfluous actual arguments soo (15 Apr 2006 00:47 UTC)
Re: Superfluous actual arguments Marc Feeley (15 Apr 2006 02:18 UTC)

Re: Superfluous actual arguments soo 15 Apr 2006 00:47 UTC

 * From: Marc Feeley <>
 * Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:31:37 -0400
 * Subj: Re: Superfluous actual arguments
  | On 14-Apr-06, at 11:15 AM, Joo ChurlSoo wrote:

  >> I think it is better that foo has rest parameter to consume
  >> the redundant arguments even if the rest parameter is not
  >> used in the definition of the procedure.  Even though it has
  >> rest parameter, such a function is possible.  And it seems
  >> to be a more clear syntax.

  | 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.

Joo ChurlSoo