PRE-PROPOSAL: Named method parameters with defaults. (original) (raw)
Marek Kozieł develop4lasu at gmail.com
Sun Mar 22 18:25:26 PDT 2009
- Previous message: PRE-PROPOSAL: Named method parameters with defaults.
- Next message: PRE-PROPOSAL: Named method parameters with defaults.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
2009/3/23 Reinier Zwitserloot <reinier at zwitserloot.com>:
If your goal is to find a way to eliminate the builder pattern - good luck. I don't think any proposal other than the builder pattern can replace the builder pattern. Even python and friends have rare usage of the builder pattern.
This proposal has named parameters, defaults, and allows shuffling order. What more could you possibly want out of a proposal to make direct method invocation easier when there are many parameters? --Reinier Zwitserloot
I need ask you about something. Where do you see problem:
- when creating such method invocation?
- reading such invocation?
- while refactoring?
My conclusions:
default values are quite good if blank === default, and even better if blank === null === default
reordering parameters is wrong path, will create more confusion: 9 parameters mean 9! = 362880 combinations o.O
having named parameters is OK, but not in given form: method(Some some){ call(some = “New”,...); } 'some' is parameter in call or variable from current block.
Maybe IDE (with compiler) should create proper signature( and re-check it): method(Some some){ call( /** some =/ “New” ,... ); } or method(Some some){ call( “New” // some ,1 //* length ,... ); }
-- Pozdrowionka. / Regards. Lasu aka Marek Kozieł
http://lasu2string.blogspot.com/
- Previous message: PRE-PROPOSAL: Named method parameters with defaults.
- Next message: PRE-PROPOSAL: Named method parameters with defaults.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]