ActionScript - Ignoring Passed Arguments? - actionscript-3

Question

i've been studying this code example for Rung-Kutta physics but i don't understand what is happening with the acceleration(p:Point, v:Point):Point function. the function accepts 2 point objects as required arguments but doesn't use them in the function while simply returning a new point.
i'm unfamiliar with this style of argument passing. can someone explain the significance of this function to me?
the source is from Keith Peters' book Advanced ActionScript 3.0 Animation, Chapter 6 - Advanced Physics, page 246.
package {
import flash.display.Sprite;
import flash.display.StageAlign;
import flash.display.StageScaleMode;
import flash.events.Event;
import flash.geom.Point;
import flash.utils.getTimer;
public class RK2 extends Sprite
{
private var _ball:Sprite;
private var _position:Point;
private var _velocity:Point;
private var _gravity:Number = 32;
private var _bounce:Number = -0.6;
private var _oldTime:int;
private var _pixelsPerFoot:Number = 10;
public function RK2()
{
stage.align = StageAlign.TOP_LEFT;
stage.scaleMode = StageScaleMode.NO_SCALE;
_ball = new Sprite();
_ball.graphics.beginFill(0xff0000);
_ball.graphics.drawCircle(0, 0, 20);
_ball.graphics.endFill();
_ball.x = 50;
_ball.y = 50;
addChild(_ball);
_velocity = new Point(10, 0);
_position = new Point(_ball.x / _pixelsPerFoot, _ball.y / _pixelsPerFoot);
_oldTime = getTimer();
addEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME, onEnterFrame);
}
private function onEnterFrame(event:Event):void
{
var time:int = getTimer();
var elapsed:Number = (time - _oldTime) / 1000;
_oldTime = time;
var accel1:Point = acceleration(_position, _velocity);
var position2:Point = new Point();
position2.x = _position.x + _velocity.x * elapsed;
position2.y = _position.y + _velocity.y * elapsed;
var velocity2:Point = new Point();
velocity2.x = _velocity.x + accel1.x * elapsed;
velocity2.y = _velocity.y + accel1.x * elapsed;
var accel2:Point = acceleration(position2, velocity2);
_position.x += (_velocity.x + velocity2.x) / 2 * elapsed;
_position.y += (_velocity.y + velocity2.y) / 2 * elapsed;
_velocity.x += (accel1.x + accel2.x) / 2 * elapsed;
_velocity.y += (accel1.y + accel2.y) / 2 * elapsed;
if(_position.y > (stage.stageHeight - 20) / _pixelsPerFoot)
{
_position.y = (stage.stageHeight - 20) / _pixelsPerFoot;
_velocity.y *= _bounce;
}
if(_position.x > (stage.stageWidth - 20) / _pixelsPerFoot)
{
_position.x = (stage.stageWidth - 20) / _pixelsPerFoot;
_velocity.x *= _bounce
}
else if(_position.x < 20 / _pixelsPerFoot)
{
_position.x = 20 / _pixelsPerFoot;
_velocity.x *= _bounce;
}
_ball.x = _position.x * _pixelsPerFoot;
_ball.y = _position.y * _pixelsPerFoot;
}
private function acceleration(p:Point, v:Point):Point
{
return new Point(0, _gravity);
}
}
}

Answer 1

I think the author may be using the method acceleration as a place holder, perhaps for updates on a subsequent chapter.
Of course as it is right now, the acceleration method could be rewritten as
private function acceleration(...rest):Point {
return new Point(0, _gravity);
}
Or the arguments could be removed completely (though that would require the places where the method is called to be updated to not contain any arguments.)
This isn't a style of programming per se, but, I have seen this type of placeholder code put into books before.

Answer 2

You also could set the arguments with a null as default, so they are optional.
private function acceleration(p:Point = null, v:Point = null):Point
{
return new Point(0, _gravity);
}