# Ruby suggestion feedback

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-suggestion-feedback/108789>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [July 7, 2007, 1:26am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-suggestion-feedback/108789 "2007-07-07T01:26:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 7\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rogerdpack)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2007, 1:26am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-suggestion-feedback/108789/1 "2007-07-07T01:26:54Z")

</div>

Hmm. I realize these have been discussed before, but… (terrible way to  
start a post, I know).  
I for one, being the terrible newbie I am, would like to suggest the  
following change to Ruby (like RCR it).  
Variable parameter assignment in function calls. (sorry)  
i.e. the following:  
function\_x(3,4,failure=true,options=false)

(by default, not using hashes). This allows for more understandable  
code than  
function\_x(3,4,true,true,1,true,false) # does anyone after 3 months  
remember what each of those MEANT? [note the true,false at the  
end–those were my “failure” and “options,” from the first example].  
I’m not saying Ruby is bad, just that this would be better.

Any thoughts? Should I RCR it?

Thanks!  
-Roger

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rogerdpack)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2007, 3:08am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-suggestion-feedback/108789/2 "2007-07-07T03:08:57Z")

</div>

Hi –

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Roger P. wrote:

> function\_x(3,4,true,true,1,true,false) # does anyone after 3 months  
> remember what each of those MEANT? [note the true,false at the  
> end–those were my “failure” and “options,” from the first example].  
> I’m not saying Ruby is bad, just that this would be better.
> 
> Any thoughts? Should I RCR it?

All this stuff (argument syntax and semantics, keyword arguments,  
etc.) is very much on the radar already. I don’t think there’s  
anything to be gained by submitting an RCR for one particular version  
of it. In 1.9 you’ve got hash shortcuts and possibly other things  
already coming:

x(failure: true, options: false, …)

(May not be a working example but that’s the kind of thing.)

David

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rogerdpack)\
**Post date:** [July 18, 2007, 9:21pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-suggestion-feedback/108789/3 "2007-07-18T21:21:07Z")

</div>

Here’s another thought. Who would vote for this?  
“rescue =\> detail” catching Exception by default

unknown wrote:

> Hi –
> 
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Roger P. wrote:
> 
> > function\_x(3,4,true,true,1,true,false) # does anyone after 3 months  
> > remember what each of those MEANT? [note the true,false at the  
> > end–those were my “failure” and “options,” from the first example].  
> > I’m not saying Ruby is bad, just that this would be better.
> > 
> > Any thoughts? Should I RCR it?
> 
> All this stuff (argument syntax and semantics, keyword arguments,  
> etc.) is very much on the radar already. I don’t think there’s  
> anything to be gained by submitting an RCR for one particular version  
> of it. In 1.9 you’ve got hash shortcuts and possibly other things  
> already coming:
> 
> x(failure: true, options: false, …)
> 
> (May not be a working example but that’s the kind of thing.)
> 
> David

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rogerdpack)\
**Post date:** [July 18, 2007, 9:31pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-suggestion-feedback/108789/4 "2007-07-18T21:31:29Z")

</div>

Roger P. wrote:

> Here’s another thought. Who would vote for this?  
> “rescue =\> detail” catching Exception by default

I wouldn’t. The current behaviour is good.  
Sadly though there are some library writers out there inheriting from  
Exception instead of StandardError for non-fatal stuff.

Regards  
Stefan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rogerdpack)\
**Post date:** [July 18, 2007, 9:51pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-suggestion-feedback/108789/5 "2007-07-18T21:51:44Z")

</div>

On 7/18/07, Roger P. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> Here’s another thought. Who would vote for this?  
> “rescue =\> detail” catching Exception by default  
> Oh no, it might be a good feature I dunno, but it would be terribly  
> abused…  
> I do not see any obvious advantage that would justify that risk.

For what concerns your first suggestion it is a good one, Bravo for a  
newbie ( you might come from Python 😉 but David is right, this is  
about to be addressed already…

Cheers  
Robert

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rogerdpack)\
**Post date:** [August 3, 2007, 6:58pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-suggestion-feedback/108789/6 "2007-08-03T18:58:40Z")

</div>

Stefan R. wrote:

> Roger P. wrote:
> 
> > Here’s another thought. Who would vote for this?  
> > “rescue =\> detail” catching Exception by default
> 
> I wouldn’t. The current behaviour is good.  
> Sadly though there are some library writers out there inheriting from  
> Exception instead of StandardError for non-fatal stuff.
> 
> Regards  
> Stefan

Yeah it just gets me that things like Timeout::Error does not inherit  
from StandardError. I agree.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rogerdpack)\
**Post date:** [July 18, 2007, 10:42pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-suggestion-feedback/108789/7 "2007-07-18T22:42:37Z")

</div>

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 04:31:33 +0900, Stefan R. wrote:

> Roger P. wrote:
> 
> > Here’s another thought. Who would vote for this? “rescue =\> detail”  
> > catching Exception by default
> 
> I wouldn’t. The current behaviour is good. Sadly though there are some  
> library writers out there inheriting from Exception instead of  
> StandardError for non-fatal stuff.

Probably under the influence of Java.

–Ken