From: Nicolas C. <war...@fr...> - 2003-02-25 09:43:33
|
> > How about scribbling specs for libraries in module signatures then > > producing structures that implement the signatures? In this way: > > ... > > libraries nowadays only because it's my own and I remember coding it > > (and the names of the addons)). > > Sound good to me. To verify the signatures are the ones needed, each person > could look at his code and see if it would be what he wanted. What a pity when > the type of a function (for example the order of arguments) is *almost* what we > need and we have to create a dummy function, for example to change the order of > the arguments... ... or update your whole code using the ExtLib :) Do it once, and sleep better after. > BTW, what about labels ? with or without ? I vote for only optional labels, > except for functions with plenty of arguments of the same type. Labels should be used for what they have been made for : tipping an ambigous argument. Of course optionals options are also welcome, but only if they're meeting a massive need ( I wouldn't like to see ten optionals options for some -can-do-everything- function ) Nicolas Cannasse |