Anonymous user
Talk:Optional parameters: Difference between revisions
→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 some comments, also added a question. -- ~~~~) |
|||
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)
== Absence of arguments ==
| |||