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 some comments, also added a question. -- ~~~~) |
(→Isn't too much if the aim is to show optional parameters?: added my bad (erronous) interpretation of a sentence. -- ~~~~) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 21:
: 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 ==
| |||