Got it, thanks
vineri, 11 noiembrie 2016, 19:11:28 UTC+1, Stefan Karpinski a scris:
>
> 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....@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> 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.
>>
>
>
