You can use a name like _ but otherwise, no, there's no way to do this.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Adrian Salceanu <adrian.salce...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> I love the block syntax for functions as it provides great readability and
> I'm using it heavily as a design pattern to enclose code behind
> authorization or caching.
>
> For example:
>
> function article_edit(params::Dict{Symbol,Any}; a::Article = Article())
> with_authorization(:edit, unauthorized_access, params) do auth_scopes
> article = SearchLight.is_persisted(a) ? a : SearchLight.find_one!!(
> Article, params[:article_id])
> ejl(:admin, :article, layout = :admin, article = article, params =
> params) |> respond
> end
> end
>
> I was wondering if there's any way to make the auth_scopes param optional
> for the cases when the users are not interested in this passed value.
> Similarly to how in the ruby blocks you're not required to capture the
> values that are passed into, if you don't want them. It will help to
> greatly reduce the noise, especially when multiple params are expected.
>
