220 7136 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ville Voutilainen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Named arguments proposal Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:35:24 +0300 Lines: 109 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <74166da9-20f4-49b0-a9e6-47bf5be92e35@isocpp.org> <6ba6b273-76df-4037-9851-4a2ab98f0b68@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015371dcd9502a04e83badb7 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1381242923 28243 80.91.229.3 (8 Oct 2013 14:35:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:35:23 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRBLNQ2CJAKGQEBAB2IHI@isocpp.org Tue Oct 08 16:35:27 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-qc0-f199.google.com ([209.85.216.199]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VTYNi-0007PD-Pa for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:35:27 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-qc0-f199.google.com with SMTP id u18sf16656862qcx.10 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=XCvQpMRgNQX7mxC2FcLGT1F36oq8uGHoTyzWCoU+qbo=; b=e6nMooAaB3s9hapopHRYD1BieVIWc+u7Y/1ANnK8HTFEs3iy2HQOyN3mquRDm/Xlog OcFFXdnNxXEJfgn72f9EDHgXIy+gWXapC8fUdzhKG+vtp+TLs6Hsa0rkHB48WEfkYBej eWOQqUhGbmXzaYIo5zyAY5OlMIoL3eOadZvLz38gtDO/yMEyS1gLRySOT1PChhyOf3yq fZ9IbK/I0slEQz4WosM1d3e1G+IRG0axCBvm+w3z7ulf5JIYeX6fC9SoNcZ0X9QjY7h4 GyuT/6tWbEZV58tbznFgZrV4WQuUxqIrGd3+Sd0MYGRmD0GienxtPMphJjaB+Dfa20OO Myhw== X-Received: by 10.236.94.205 with SMTP id n53mr1928752yhf.44.1381242925818; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.49.104.84 with SMTP id gc20ls221552qeb.96.gmail; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.63.199 with SMTP id c7mr4232735qai.74.1381242925347; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-qe0-f53.google.com (mail-qe0-f53.google.com [209.85.128.53]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k1si15447452qeo.128.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 209.85.128.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.128.53; Original-Received: by mail-qe0-f53.google.com with SMTP id cy11so2550764qeb.12 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:35:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.62.13 with SMTP id v13mr4173837qah.35.1381242924255; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.224.76.135 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:35:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: ville.voutilainen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 209.85.128.53 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ville.voutilainen@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:7136 Archived-At: --089e015371dcd9502a04e83badb7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 8 October 2013 17:32, Zhihao Yuan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Ville Voutilainen > wrote: > >> I hope order call is not supported on named arguments at all. Python 2 > >> has it, but caused lots of problems, especially when a signature is > >> changed, the old problem may still run but runtime behavior is silently > >> changed, which is really horrible, and finally people added "keyword- > >> only argument" in Python 3. > >> > >> > > > > It doesn't cause any problem that wasn't always present with functions > > ever since c++98. If a user is concerned about that, he should use > > named arguments in his calls, but I see no reason to prevent > > unnamed arguments for those who wish to use them. > > ?? I guess you miss understood. > > What I mean is, if an argument is declared as named argument: > > void f(int x, int y:); // y in this example > > Call the function with the named argument named works: > > f(3, y: 4); > > But with the named argument unnamed should not: > > f(3, 4); // no!!! > > I understood it just fine, and YES, I want that call to work. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. --089e015371dcd9502a04e83badb7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On 8 October 2013 17:32, Zhihao Yuan <zy@miator.net> wr= ote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Ville Voutilainen
<ville.voutilainen@gmail.= com> wrote:
>> I hope order call is not supported on named arguments at all. =A0P= ython 2
>> has it, but caused lots of problems, especially when a signature i= s
>> changed, the old problem may still run but runtime behavior is sil= ently
>> changed, which is really horrible, and finally people added "= keyword-
>> only argument" in Python 3.
>>
>>
>
> It doesn't cause any problem that wasn't always present with f= unctions
> ever since c++98. If a user is concerned about that, he should use
> named arguments in his calls, but I see no reason to prevent
> unnamed arguments for those who wish to use them.

?? I guess you miss understood.

What I mean is, if an argument is declared as named argument:

=A0 void f(int x, int y:); =A0// y in this example

Call the function with the named argument named works:

=A0 f(3, y: 4);

But with the named argument unnamed should not:

=A0 f(3, 4); =A0// no!!!

<= br>
I understood it just fine, and YES, I want that call to w= ork.

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
--089e015371dcd9502a04e83badb7-- .