Flag proposal

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:istv62$2skn$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
> news:isttf6$2oub$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> On 6/10/11 1:52 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
>>>
>>> foo(param: true, otherParam: false);
>>> foo(Flag!"param".yes, Flag!"otherParam".no);
>>>
>>> I don't know about you, but I find the former is far more legible. I'd
>>> hate to see my code littered with Flag!"something".
>>
>> I agree it's more legible. The crucial question is whether the added 
>> legibility warrants adding a new feature to the language.
>>
>
> I really see Flag more as a way to try to rationalize avoiding adding 
> named parameters to the language.
>
> And yes, the legibility of "foo(Flag!"param".yes, Flag!"otherParam".no);", 
> combined with the frequency of need for such a thing, and the complete 
> inability of Flag to address the problem for anything but bool, the 
> inability to document it separately (as Jonathan Davis pointed out), is 
> all definitely much much more than enough to warrant adding a 
> tried-and-proven feature that's become standard in damn near every other 
> modern language.
>

Regarding "the complete inability of Flag to address the problem for 
anything but bool", how are we going to wind up papering over that?

Like:

box(Int!"x"(3), Int!"y"(4), Int!"width"(100), Int!"height"(150), 
Int!"depth"(1), UInt!"color"(0xFFAA77));

?