Talk:Named parameters: Difference between revisions

:::So Kevin, would a task of "Function definition/Function call semantics and examples" be too wide a task? You might have noticed that after my initial question above, I thought it might be best to write something that might cover all such tasks and linked the Python entries of the other two to this one. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 13:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

::::Such a task is a different kind of thing, "explain your language" rather than "implement this specification". I agree that such tasks should exist (e.g. I wrote [[Eval]] and [[Variables]]), but they should be considered separately from "implement this specification" tasks like [[Optional parameters]]. [[Named Arguments]] I would say falls into a third category, along with e.g. [[List Comprehension]]: "given that your language has this feature, tell us about your particular variation".<br>In the course of writing this comment, I have changed my position: that third category is in fact valuable, and named arguments are a significant enough feature that they should have a task which focuses on them (e.g. comparing Common Lisp vs. Python vs. Objective-C would be enlightening as to the variations possible).<br>I still think that there are too-narrow tasks: for example the basic loop tasks in [[:Category:Iteration]] are such because they assume a particular family of iteration facilities: once you've been that specific, there is no room for interesting variation between languages, just syntax. --[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)