Passing function parameters by name

[Don Clugston]

Artyom Shalkhakov wrote:
> Hello everyone.
> 
> I suggest adding a new syntax for function parameter passing. To illustrate:
> 
> void foo( int a, float b ) {
>     // some code
> }
> 
> void main() {
>     foo( 1, 2.5f ); // classic
>     foo( b : 2.5f, a : -3 ); // sort of struct initializer
> }
> 
> Since named arguments can be passed in any order, they can be especially useful when a function has more than one parameter with a default value.
> 
> This concept could be applied to template instantiation as well.
> 
> -Artyom Shalkhakov

(Genuine question, not a flame):
To play devil's advocate for a moment: doesn't a long parameter list or lots of 
default arguments indicate a poor design?
Essentially, the name of the argument becomes part of the API. Why isn't 
function and object name good enough?

Named arguments are potentially a disastrous feature, if completely 
unrestricted. It was when COM needed to support VB's named arguments that 
Windows programming really nose-dived.

(OTOH: A string mixin can, given the name of a function, tell you what the names 
of all of it's default arguments are (as well as what their default values are).
I can in fact write a string mixin implementation of this feature; it's 
perfectly feasible. But is the concept actually a good idea?)