Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Functions without side effects (was Old confusion)
Message-ID: <73230@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 28 Jun 91 17:26:17 GMT
References: <1991Jun19.173 <KERS.91Jun20103727@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> <1991Jun21.013944.23970@netcom.COM> <4174@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 20

|akers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) writes:
|]
|]It gets unacceptably ugly as the number of arguments increases above 1, which
|]means that in the typical case, you want named parameters:
|]
|]    Print (This_Comment => "I love named parameter names",
|]           With_This_Spacing => 5,
|]           On_This_Device => Devices.Laserprinter,
|]           In_This_Font => Fonts.Helvetica);
|]

I'd claim named parameters are a poor substitute for methods and classes:

	StyledString str = "Named parameters are a poor substitute for OOP";
	str.spacing(5);
	str.font(helvetica);
	laserPtr << str;

When I see programmers using functions/methods with more than a couple
parameters, I can be sure they aren't really into OOP yet.