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.
by 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 agoKinda. 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)