Re: Calling PL functions with named parameters

Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Oliver Jowett wrote:
> 
>> Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>>
>>> Oliver Jowett wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Fetter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dennis has pointed out that mixing the call-with-named-parameter
>>>>> interface with call-by-order-of-parameters one would cause confusion,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Python's equivalent syntax allows you to mix the two forms so long 
>>>> as all the by-position parameters come first:
>>>>
>>> python don't have overloaded functions...
>>
>> It doesn't change how you'd handle overloaded functions; you still 
>> have a type for every parameter available.
> 
> 
> I think will be a mess that will break the "minor surprise" principle,
> even the bad C++ stays away from this field ( se explicit constructors,
> and automatic cast limited to only one level ).

I don't understand your argument. What is the surprising behaviour you 
are worried about?

-O