Anonymous user
Talk:Optional parameters: Difference between revisions
→Isn't too much if the aim is to show optional parameters?: added my bad (erronous) interpretation of a sentence. -- ~~~~
(→Isn't too much if the aim is to show optional parameters?: added my bad (erronous) interpretation of a sentence. -- ~~~~) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 19:
:: Yep, Fortran code I am going to add does a little bit more... could it be all reduced to the "interface" (in the Fortran sense) declaration and an explanation of the "present" intrinsic? (To discourage the scenario, it would be enough to me to focus the task on optional argumentes... they can't be disregarded if the task is about them!) --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 12:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
: I don't understand the penalization of languages that don't have a SORT built-in. The sort part is trivial. What I thought was the point of the task was to show how to use/utilize/specify optional parameters. The REXX language handles these types of problems with ease, even though it has a pretty small set of built-ins. The handling of optional/named/multiple/omitted/null/positional/etc. parameters is where REXX excels. (By the way, omitted and null parameters aren't the same in REXX.) What is the purpose in excluding languages that don't have a SORT? Do you think the (source code) example(s) would become too large? Would it be OK to add an example, but don't include the SORT code? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 23:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
::I read it as just omit the implementation ''details'' of a sort and just call simpler sort(s) allowing the example to concentrate on the optional parameters to the enclosing routine? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 07:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
::: I didn't read it that way unfortunately. I read it (erronously) that "the implementation" was the implementation of the example, not the sort. By bad. It would be nice if that sentence would read: ",just omit the sort implementation (with a comment)." --- but it's not my dog. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 14:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
== Absence of arguments ==
Line 35 ⟶ 41:
::I agree that's more in the scope of [[varargs]]. I'm talking about specific (that is, not just a collection of all following arguments) optional parameters having not-otherwise-reproducible behavior when omitted. --[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 14:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Some languages strongly distinguish, some don't. The fact that some do though means that it is worth describing on this site. On the other hand, the proposed name is far too close to this task's, so it's better to split this one so that it focusses on the optionality, and have [[Named Arguments|another one]] handle the naming. —[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 08:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure exactly what you propose splitting this task to; could you clarify?<br>I am concerned about creating too fine-grained distinctions: RC tasks should compare the approaches of different languages, and we should therefore avoid preferring tasks which are "Demonstrate this feature of your language if it has it". This task I specifically designed to be neutral about whether the language supports named parameters. --[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 11:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
| |||