Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!visix!news
From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: named parameters and verbosity [was: Functions without side effects]
Message-ID: <1991Jun27.052157.2291@visix.com>
Date: 27 Jun 91 05:21:57 GMT
References: <130242@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <4888@osc.COM>
	<72893@microsoft.UUCP> <1991Jun21.013944.23970@netcom.COM>
	<20445@alice.att.com> <1991Jun26.001847.24239@netcom.COM>
	<1991Jun26.185707.26149@visix.com>
Sender: news@visix.com
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
Lines: 29

adam@visix.com (Adam Kao) writes:

   I almost never put raw constants in my code, both because of the thin
   semantics and because changing the constants becomes a ridiculous
   hunt-and-kill exercise.  ("Search-and-replace: 5 [CR] with: 6 [CR]").

I agree (which may not be a surprise :)).  Use of macro-defined and
enumerated constants is an important aspect of good coding style, in C
as in any other language.

One of the things I like about Common Lisp is the way it handles "keyword
arguments."  In particular, you can often write functions that have a
useful mixture of implicitly and explicity labelled parameters.  For example:

	(make-array '(2 2))

makes an uninitialized array (or perhaps one initialized to some default
value), while

	(make-array '(2 2) :initial-contents '((1 2) (3 4)))

makes one with the specified initial contents, and so on.

--
Amanda Walker						      amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc.					...!uunet!visix!amanda
-- 
"I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck."
		-- Rob Pike commenting on the X Window System