5 ms·

Method Arguments In Ruby

13 points by askorkin 17y ago

_giu 17y ago
Java has the same types of method arguments. C# (.NET 3.5) misses one type of method argument: the default parameter (it will be shipped with .NET 4.0). I have to admit, it happened only once that I missed default parameters in C#. however, there's a workaround to solve this problem: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa287762(VS.71).aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa287762(VS.71).aspx
- nudded 17y ago
  > Java has the same types of method arguments. no it hasn't. You can't do public method(String name = "test") {...} in Java
  - _giu 17y ago
    I completely forgot about that (long time no intensive Java programming for me)! thanks for the correction
- bad_user 17y ago
  > it happened only once that I missed default parameters in C# I actually missed it lots of times. You can work around it by overloading the method, but that's boilerplate for a simple concept. I also miss named arguments (in both Ruby and C#). When reading the code, when a method has more arguments than one I often forget what the arguments are or their positioning, and it is a lot more readable to specify the arguments by their names ... lockfile( path = '/var/run/script', timeout = 60, on_timeout = handler) Ruby doesn't support that. It only has syntactic sugar for the case in which the argument of the method is a hash, but then the method definition becomes less clear.
  - _giu 17y ago
    I totally agree with you! the code is definitely more readable. I think the object initalizer (e.g. var o = new MyObject(){ID=123};) was a step in the direction of named parameters. however, it looks like named parameters will be shipped with .NET 4.0: http://geekswithblogs.net/michelotti/archive/2009/01/22/c-4.0-named-parameters-for-better-code-quality.aspx http://geekswithblogs.net/michelotti/archive/2009/01/22/c-4....
draegtun 17y ago
Perl6 has a very rich set in its spec: http://perlcabal.org/syn/S06.html#Parameters_and_arguments http://perlcabal.org/syn/S06.html#Parameters_and_arguments There are a few Perl5 ports of which MooseX::Method::Signatures is probably the best implementation: http://search.cpan.org/dist/MooseX-Method-Signatures/lib/MooseX/Method/Signatures.pm http://search.cpan.org/dist/MooseX-Method-Signatures/lib/Moo...
Bjoern 17y ago
I wonder why such a simple topic is in the top ten of HN? Is that stuff not more or less obvious? I mean for people working with Ruby?
- askorkin 17y ago
  I have been finding more and more that things which are obvious to some are not necessarily obvious to others. Not everyone is a guru in every skill and everyone has to start as a newbie with all new skill you learn. What about for people who are not working with Ruby but are curious about how it compares? How about those who have just started working with Ruby and are just learning? Think back to the first time you started reading about Ruby, was all the info you ever wanted freely available and clearly laid out? I am betting no. This is why these days whenever I learn anything new (or think of something I know really well), as soon as i get it straight in my own head I go and write it up. It helps me clarify it even further for myself plus, since the information is out there it may end up helping others who are learning about the same topics. Anyway, that's how I feel.
jamesbritt 17y ago
It would be good to say what version of Ruby this is about. I'm guessing it's 1.8.7, but 1.9, the current version of Ruby (though likely not the most used) offers additional (and in some cases, different) ways to manage arguments.

13 points by askorkin 17y ago

_giu 17y ago

Java has the same types of method arguments. C# (.NET 3.5) misses one type of method argument: the default parameter (it will be shipped with .NET 4.0). I have to admit, it happened only once that I missed default parameters in C#. however, there's a workaround to solve this problem: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa287762(VS.71).aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa287762(VS.71).aspx

nudded 17y ago
> Java has the same types of method arguments. no it hasn't. You can't do public method(String name = "test") {...} in Java
- _giu 17y ago
  I completely forgot about that (long time no intensive Java programming for me)! thanks for the correction
bad_user 17y ago
> it happened only once that I missed default parameters in C# I actually missed it lots of times. You can work around it by overloading the method, but that's boilerplate for a simple concept. I also miss named arguments (in both Ruby and C#). When reading the code, when a method has more arguments than one I often forget what the arguments are or their positioning, and it is a lot more readable to specify the arguments by their names ... lockfile( path = '/var/run/script', timeout = 60, on_timeout = handler) Ruby doesn't support that. It only has syntactic sugar for the case in which the argument of the method is a hash, but then the method definition becomes less clear.
- _giu 17y ago
  I totally agree with you! the code is definitely more readable. I think the object initalizer (e.g. var o = new MyObject(){ID=123};) was a step in the direction of named parameters. however, it looks like named parameters will be shipped with .NET 4.0: http://geekswithblogs.net/michelotti/archive/2009/01/22/c-4.0-named-parameters-for-better-code-quality.aspx http://geekswithblogs.net/michelotti/archive/2009/01/22/c-4....

draegtun 17y ago

Perl6 has a very rich set in its spec: http://perlcabal.org/syn/S06.html#Parameters_and_arguments http://perlcabal.org/syn/S06.html#Parameters_and_arguments There are a few Perl5 ports of which MooseX::Method::Signatures is probably the best implementation: http://search.cpan.org/dist/MooseX-Method-Signatures/lib/MooseX/Method/Signatures.pm http://search.cpan.org/dist/MooseX-Method-Signatures/lib/Moo...

Bjoern 17y ago

I wonder why such a simple topic is in the top ten of HN? Is that stuff not more or less obvious? I mean for people working with Ruby?

askorkin 17y ago
I have been finding more and more that things which are obvious to some are not necessarily obvious to others. Not everyone is a guru in every skill and everyone has to start as a newbie with all new skill you learn. What about for people who are not working with Ruby but are curious about how it compares? How about those who have just started working with Ruby and are just learning? Think back to the first time you started reading about Ruby, was all the info you ever wanted freely available and clearly laid out? I am betting no. This is why these days whenever I learn anything new (or think of something I know really well), as soon as i get it straight in my own head I go and write it up. It helps me clarify it even further for myself plus, since the information is out there it may end up helping others who are learning about the same topics. Anyway, that's how I feel.

jamesbritt 17y ago

It would be good to say what version of Ruby this is about. I'm guessing it's 1.8.7, but 1.9, the current version of Ruby (though likely not the most used) offers additional (and in some cases, different) ways to manage arguments.