Re: Named arguments in function calls

david@fetter.org (David Fetter) writes:

> In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401251005300.30205-100000@zigo.dhs.org> you wrote:
> >
> > I've been looking (and coded) a little bit on named function calls.
> > Calls on the form:
> > 
> >  foo (x => 13, y => 42)
> > 
> > Implementing this means that the symbol => no longer can be defined
> > by the user as an operator. It's not used as default in pg, but I
> > just want to tell you up front in case you don't like that.

Is it really necessary to steal it? There's some precedent for special cases
in argument lists: "," is an operator in C yet it has special meaning in
function arguments.

-- 
greg