Re: Function naming: Problems and proposed solution

I know +1 or +1,000 replies are trite, but +1 (or even more) to this.

On 02.12.2020 11:56, Michael Kay wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 2 Dec 2020, at 09:58, Tom Hillman <tom@expertml.com 
>> <mailto:tom@expertml.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I see more and more functions taking an options map as the final 
>> argument...
>>
> 
> And perhaps that could be formalised into the language syntax so instead of
> 
> serialize($x, map{'method':'json', 'indent':true()})
> 
> you can write
> 
> serialize($x, method: 'json', indent: true())
> 
> Specifically, any keyword: value pairs in the function call are gathered 
> together into a map, which is supplied as the last argument of the call, 
> and the above call is treated as a call on the arity=2 function because 
> there are one-or-more keyword:value arguments supplied.
> 
> I write calls like that a lot in xsl:message for debugging, and 
> simplifying the syntax would be a very useful convenience.
> 
> If the function signature declares the options parameter as a record 
> type rather than a general map type then it also gives you the 
> opportunity for static checking that the option names are right.
> 
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica
> 

Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2020 11:10:20 UTC