Larry wrote:
Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of positionals and named. We could allow named at the beginning or end but still keep a constraint that all positionals must occur together in one zone.
If losing the magic from =>'d pairs isn't buying us named args wherever we like, why are we contemplating it?
I suspect a lot of people would still prefer to write named args with =>,
I'd say so.
so we should put some thought into making it syntactically trivial, if not automatic like it is now. Even making named() a listop would help.
I'd say that's the best alternative. I'd certainly prefer that to repurposing :(...)
I hate to say it, but the named args should probably be marked with : instead of + in the signature. One other idle thought is that, if we don't mind blowing a different kind of consistency, and if we s/+/:/ in sigs, a sig containing :$foo could instead be written $:foo (presuming we take : away from privates as we've postulated),
Yes please. Underscore is much better in that role. Damian
