# Re: Confusion Over Keyword Arguments

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-confusion-over-keyword-arguments/75970>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [March 2, 2006, 11:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-confusion-over-keyword-arguments/75970 "2006-03-02T23:02:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BergerS\_Daniel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/bc8723/32.png) [@BergerS\_Daniel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/BergerS_Daniel)\
**Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 11:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-confusion-over-keyword-arguments/75970/1 "2006-03-02T23:02:33Z")

</div>

> > > 
> > 
> > to  
> > Here’s the latest test case we had for Sydney. Note that Sydney  
> > [http://redhanded.hobix.com/inspect/namedParametersArenTTheyAllNamed.ht](http://redhanded.hobix.com/inspect/namedParametersArenTTheyAllNamed.ht)
> > 
> > # You can use named parameters, using the name of the parameter
> 
> Your testcases do not seem to cover the scope completely and  
> assert\_nothing\_raised{ @foo.bar(z:1, x:2, y:3) }  
> end # test\_corner\_cases
> 
> To cover those.

Yes, I think this is one of the reasons we started leaning towards using  
‘=’ instead. Maybe we should stick with ‘=\>’ - no issues with symbols  
or assignment, and people are used to it.

Regards,

Dan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BergerS\_Daniel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/bc8723/32.png) [@BergerS\_Daniel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/BergerS_Daniel)\
**Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 11:35pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-confusion-over-keyword-arguments/75970/2 "2006-03-02T23:35:35Z")

</div>

Berger, Daniel wrote:

> > > > 
> > > 
> > > to  
> > > Here’s the latest test case we had for Sydney. Note that Sydney  
> > > [http://redhanded.hobix.com/inspect/namedParametersArenTTheyAllNamed.ht](http://redhanded.hobix.com/inspect/namedParametersArenTTheyAllNamed.ht)
> > > 
> > > # You can use named parameters, using the name of the parameter
> > 
> > Your testcases do not seem to cover the scope completely and  
> > assert\_nothing\_raised{ @foo.bar(z:1, x:2, y:3) }  
> > end # test\_corner\_cases
> > 
> > To cover those.
> 
> Yes, I think this is one of the reasons we started leaning towards using  
> ‘=’ instead. Maybe we should stick with ‘=\>’ - no issues with symbols  
> or assignment, and people are used to it.

Both problems should be fixed by mandating that there  
be a space between foo: and its argument 🙂 What other  
parsing issues that might bring is different.

> Regards,
> 
> Dan

E