4 ms·

I do not understand how they could develop a language inspired by OCaml but not bring over labeled function arguments. A real L when it comes to ergonomics. An

I do not understand how they could develop a language inspired by OCaml but not bring over labeled function arguments. A real L when it comes to ergonomics. And they just have no plans to ever fix this??

AdieuToLogic 1y ago
> I do not understand how they could develop a language inspired by OCaml but not bring over labeled function arguments. A real L when it comes to ergonomics. Is this what you desire? Named Arguments[0] Arguments for methods can be specified by position in a comma-separated argument list, or they can be passed to a method explicitly by providing the name, followed by an equal sign and the value to be passed in. If specified by providing the name, they can appear in a different order from that used in the declaration. 0 - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-reference/parameters-and-arguments#named-arguments https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-ref...
- mbac32768 1y ago
  Kinda. Except in OCaml this deficiency does not exist: > Named arguments are allowed only for methods, not for let-bound functions, function values, or lambda expressions.
  - AdieuToLogic 1y ago
    > Kinda. Except in OCaml this deficiency does not exist: Named arguments are allowed only for methods, not for let-bound functions, function values, or lambda expressions. True. They are different languages after all, sharing a common ancestor in ML[0] yet diverging for their own reasons. Still, the original concern was identified thusly: >> I do not understand how they could develop a language inspired by OCaml but not bring over labeled function arguments. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_(programming_language)
smoothdeveloper 1y ago
You can read this suggestion, and upvote, comment, contribute: https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/1434 https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/1434

AdieuToLogic 1y ago

> I do not understand how they could develop a language inspired by OCaml but not bring over labeled function arguments. A real L when it comes to ergonomics. Is this what you desire? Named Arguments[0] Arguments for methods can be specified by position in a comma-separated argument list, or they can be passed to a method explicitly by providing the name, followed by an equal sign and the value to be passed in. If specified by providing the name, they can appear in a different order from that used in the declaration. 0 - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-reference/parameters-and-arguments#named-arguments https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-ref...

mbac32768 1y ago
Kinda. Except in OCaml this deficiency does not exist: > Named arguments are allowed only for methods, not for let-bound functions, function values, or lambda expressions.
- AdieuToLogic 1y ago
  > Kinda. Except in OCaml this deficiency does not exist: Named arguments are allowed only for methods, not for let-bound functions, function values, or lambda expressions. True. They are different languages after all, sharing a common ancestor in ML[0] yet diverging for their own reasons. Still, the original concern was identified thusly: >> I do not understand how they could develop a language inspired by OCaml but not bring over labeled function arguments. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_(programming_language)

smoothdeveloper 1y ago

You can read this suggestion, and upvote, comment, contribute: https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/1434 https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/1434