Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

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 Marc Feeley 15 Apr 2006 02:18 UTC

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