A nice way to step into 2012

[Timon Gehr]

On 12/31/2011 12:13 PM, Don wrote:
> On 31.12.2011 02:27, so wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 02:40:24 +0200, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think: there are cases when named parameters are beneficial. There
>>> are cases where they are detrimental.
>>> Is it possible to get the first, without the second, and without much
>>> complexity?
>>
>> If we keep rules simple as possible i think it is possible.
>> For that we need our own rules i think, remembering all those rules
>> suggested here
>> i can understand why people have issues with them.
>>
>>> (I'm thinking of something like, a colon before the parameter name
>>> means the name is part of the API).
>>
>> This i don't like, we shouldn't change anything on API side.
>> All they need to know is that their parameter names (if they provid one)
>> might be used in NPs.
>> Otherwise it would complicate both implementation and usability.
>
> But it is IMPOSSIBLE to not provide them.

It is possible:

void foo(int, float, double, string);

But then it is impossible to have an implementation around for CTFE.