> On Jun 24, 2015, at 16:37 , Marco S Hyman <m...@snafu.org> wrote:
>
> On Jun 24, 2015, at 4:09 PM, Rick Mann <rm...@latencyzero.com> wrote:
>>
>> I guess I disagree: it's obvious in most cases. Again, I'm just arguing for
>> the OPTION. You can always choose to use the parameter name if you wish.
>
> You have the option. Given this signature:
>
> func foo(intArg: Int, stringArg: String) -> Bool { ... }
>
> add this code to call the function without named arguments.
>
> func foo(intArg: Int, _ stringArg: String) -> Bool {
> return foo(intArg, stringArg: stringArg)
> }
>
> Now you can call it either way.
>
> I like that I do NOT have the ability to mix and match calling conventions
> by accident which could possibly confuse code readers. Especially when I am
> the code reader! If I really need the the option to do mix styles adding
> code such as that above wouldn’t be an issue.
Again, pretty huge burden.
--
Rick Mann
rm...@latencyzero.com
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
