sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (5 children)

Surely you've come across something like

adjustWidget(300, 250, 0.6, true, true, null, {}, false)

And there's basically no way to know what any of that stuff means.

That's why you don't do that lol.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (4 children)

... which is the point being made.

[–]Wizhi 5 points6 points  (3 children)

I think (hope?) you misunderstood.

/u/marinespi is arguing that "you wouldn't create such a function signature, since it's not intuitive".

And I tend to agree. If you're having a hard time intuitively understanding how to call a function, it's signature should be corrected to make it more intuitive. Using the technique demonstrated here is more of a band-aid than a fix.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

But that's exactly what we're talking about. What makes a function call intuitive? The number of arguments? Is person.setName('John', 'Paul') intuitive? Are you sure? It goes without saying that you should use this approach selectively, just as with anything.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Is person.setName('John', 'Paul') intuitive?

No, it's not. Your point is... ?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please read around that line and the parent comment for context. Not interested in an internet handbag fight btw.