Flag proposal

[David Nadlinger]

On 6/10/11 9:47 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> I completely agree with Robert and Michel on all the points they've raised.
> Flag is admittedly a great example of the power of D's templates. And it's
> admittedly a very clever hack to get around *some* of the limitations of not
> having named parameters...*But* it's *still* just that: a hack to get around
> some of the limitations of not having named parameters. And yes, it is
> comparatively ugly, as Robert and Michel's examples have very clearly shown.
>
> Also:
>
>>>> The problem that named parameters are still optional remains. Or we need
>>>> to add one extra language feature to specify required named parameters.
>
> If by that, you meant that the caller is allowed to call the function
> without naming the parameters, I really don't see that as a problem. Yea,
> *maybe* it would be better if the callee could optionally decide "caller
> must use named params", but even without that, it's a hell of a lot better
> than the current state, and it's also a lot better than Flag becase 1. It's
> *much* cleaner for both the caller and callee, and 2. It works for functions
> like foo(int, int, int, int), not just bools.

That quite accurately summarizes the reason for my short »I'm not really 
sure what to think about this – […] named parameters would be the better 
solution« comment on the pull request; full ack.

David