The Curious Case of Swift's Adoption of Smalltalk Keyword Syntax

Re:The Curious Case of Swift's Adoption of Smalltalk Keyword... by wool_gather on Sunday June 14, 2020 @02:05PM (#23519806)

The caller can't do a global rename if they don't own the source of the function -- because it's in a library. Which is what parent meant by "reverse dependency": the library's interface is constrained by the fact that it has users.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Curious Case of Swift's Adoption of Smalltalk Keyword... by fsloth on Monday June 15, 2020 @01:06AM (#23523963)

Surely if the library interface changes the users can change their own code? That's why we have versioning of libraries - so that users of the library can take intelligently new versions into use, and especially so they are aware if (and when) the interface changes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Curious Case of Swift's Adoption of Smalltalk Keyword... by DagAgren on Sunday June 14, 2020 @03:22PM (#23520531)

But this is already the case for the name of the function. Semantically, named arguments are just part of the name of the function.

[ Parent | on HN ]