Re: [stack] Parameters: ordered versus named

On 9/7/07, Manfred Von Thun <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In such languages definitions would again look as in
> lambda calculus languages:
>
> DEFINE foo(x,y,z)        # head of definition
>    = ...x...y...z...          # body of definition
>
> As before, you can change the order of the parameters
> without any need to change the body of the definition.
> But a call would look quite different: instead of relying
> on the order of the formal parameters, use their names
> as assignment statements, and make the assignments
> in any order. Hence any of the following would be OK
> as a call:
>
> foo(x=a; y=b; z=c)
> foo(y=b; z=c; x=a)
> foo(z=c; y=b; x=a)
>

Python has optional keyword arguments with default values:

 http://docs.python.org/tut/node6.html#SECTION006720000000000000000

E.g., eggs(x=a, y=b, z=c)

See also:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_parameter

--Joe

PS - This also reminds me of dynamic binding in LISP, where you could
do something degenerative like:

(let ((x a) (y b) (z c)) foo())