A nice way to step into 2012

[Don]

On 31.12.2011 16:26, Timon Gehr wrote:
> 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);

Only if you create and hand-edit a .di file.
And that won't even work for templates.

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