Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Named arguments in C
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 09:59:35 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <v65o9n$2mjeq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <utgjh0$21nsq$2@dont-email.me> <uth66l$266da$1@dont-email.me>
 <uti83u$2ed01$4@dont-email.me> <utjhfn$2r0cr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61bbh$1n9ij$1@dont-email.me>
 <pan$1e5a0$ef4a1faf$e6cedebc$3f30bac1@invalid.invalid>
 <v61la7$1p1hu$1@dont-email.me>
 <pan$9627a$afbb0d44$f2f0aac5$8cdb0dac@invalid.invalid>
Reply-To: nospam.harnden@invalid.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 10:59:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2a07946bd72f9173d4333be6f21dfbcc";
	logging-data="2837978"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XMKDodBH+DXEVcul+ZFBdvMH10caDbUY="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Up1wj/OCeTfKMcQCCcD+4ZWilAM=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <pan$9627a$afbb0d44$f2f0aac5$8cdb0dac@invalid.invalid>
Bytes: 2409

On 03/07/2024 21:16, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> Richard Harnden wrote:
> 
>> On 02/07/2024 20:39, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>>>
>>> I searched around a bit, and it seems like a more common way to
>>> implement named arguments in C is with a pattern like this:
>>>
>>> #define f(...) f_impl((struct f_struct){__VA_ARGS__})
>>> void f_impl(struct f_struct { int i, j;  char * k; double l, m, n; }
>>> f_params)
>>> {
>>> 	/* actual code */
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main(void)
>>> {
>>> 	f(.i = 0, .j = 2, .l = 2.5, .k = "foo", .n = 4.2, .m = 2.5);
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>> That's the kind of thing Bonita would write.
>> Horrible.
> 
> I assure you that i can write much worse code.  What do you say makes this
> is horrible?

It just doesn't feel like how C ought to be, not to me anyway.

If you have named parameters, then you have to allow default values.
Then you have function overloading.

I mostly try to avoid function-like macros - this would force them to be 
everywhere - and the definition would be far away from the call.

I agree with Bart downthread ...