|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/bt268c
>>
>> Let me just say: About time! I get tired of writing a bunch of
>> overloads to make parameters look like they're optional!
>
> There are some who make good arguments against default parameters.
> Basically, if it's a default parameter, it should be a separate method
> call to set the value, because that's more OO. E.g., if you have a
> default parameter for printing that says whether it should be landscape
> or portrait, that should be a value in the print-job instance, not a
> parameter specified on every call.
That is how C# is now. Sometimes it would be nice just to have one
function with defaults, rather than 3 overloads of the same function
that simply delegate back to the "full featured" function.
> Sadly, C# syntax is starting to get really ugly. :-) I expect the
> overloading rules will soon almost be as bad as C++.
Yep. Default parameters are a C thing.. :D Maybe that's why I like them...
> > list.SearchForContacts(address="home", name="sam", age:30);
>
> Heh. My first thought on seeing the syntax was "I bet I'd always be
> messing that up and using = instead of :".
>
I've never been very fond of the named arguments syntax. I'm sure some
people love it. BTW, why are strings passed with "=" and numbers passed
with ":"?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |