Why is there no named parameter support?

[Timothee Cour via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn <
digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Monday, June 08, 2015 23:18:50 Timothee Cour via Digitalmars-d-learn
> wrote:
> > nim has both overloading and named arguments (with reordering and
> defaults
> > allowed): http://nim-lang.org/docs/tut1.html#procedures-named-arguments
> > and it doesn't seem to cause issues.
> >
> > Is there a document / thread that explains the argument against named
> > arguments in more details than 'do not play well together' ?
>
> Probably not, but Walter was quite adamant when it was discussed at dconf
> that it's a disaster to mix named arguments and function overloading in the
> same language. Maybe it's not as bad as he thinks it is, but personally, I
> think that named arguments are a terrible idea in general, so I'm not about
> to try and support a position that tries to bring them into D.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>
>
I'd be very interested in reading more about those reasons beyond FUD.
The arguments in favor have been repeated many times over, and the only
argument against that I've heard ('overloading and named arguments do not
play well together') doesn't seem valid, given the precedent in nim.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d-learn/attachments/20150609/4d4576fe/attachment-0001.html>