RFC: required keyword arguments #25830
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cool! Looks good to me. Probably should get @JeffBezanson's review.
base/boot.jl
Outdated
| @@ -253,6 +254,9 @@ end | |||
| struct ArgumentError <: Exception | |||
| msg::AbstractString | |||
| end | |||
| struct UnassignedKeyword <: Exception | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this end with Error or Exception for consistency with most (all) other errors?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, I can do that. UnassignedKeywordError is a bit long. Maybe UndefKeywordError?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
KeywordError? Or KeywordException?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We also have UndefVarError and UndefRefError, so UndefKeywordError seems consistent. KeywordError seems too vague, since there are other ways you could get errors from keyword args.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But UndefKeywordError feels a bit like something that would be thrown for cases like
foo(;a = 1) = a
foo(b=2)There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would consider that an unexpected keyword argument error. "undef" is pretty consistently used to mean something that is used as a value without having been given one.
|
Looks like you'll need --- a/test/syntax.jl
+++ b/test/syntax.jl
@@ -500,10 +500,6 @@ let m_error, error_out, filename = Base.source_path()
error_out = sprint(showerror, m_error)
@test startswith(error_out, "ArgumentError: invalid type for argument number 1 in method definition for method_c6 at $filename:")
- m_error = try @eval method_c6(A; B) = 3; catch e; e; end
- error_out = sprint(showerror, m_error)
- @test error_out == "syntax: keyword argument \"B\" needs a default value"
-
# issue #20614
m_error = try @eval foo(types::NTuple{N}, values::Vararg{Any,N}, c) where {N} = nothing; catch e; e; end
error_out = sprint(showerror, m_error)since that's now a valid method definition. |
|
Removed the obsolete syntax test; hopefully tests pass now. |
|
Yay, green CI. Will merge shortly (in a day or so) since it seems everyone approves. |
|
Wow, CI is green across the board, nice work! |
|
@ararslan, yes, it is clearly the lack of required keyword arguments that has been the source of all of our CI unreliability. 😉 |
…lue. This syntax has been allowed for quite some time: JuliaLang/julia#25830
This PR implements required keyword arguments (closes #5111):
is sugar for