Flag proposal

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 06/11/2011 10:05 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/11/2011 12:58 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 6/11/11 1:59 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
>>> On 2011-06-11 13:08:48 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
>>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:
>>>
>>>> With named parameters, we'd have something along the lines of:
>>>>
>>>> topNIndex(a, sortOutput : true);
>>>>
>>>> which is nice, but not present in the language (and I can tell after
>>>> talking to Walter it won't be anytime soon).
>>>
>>> The funny thing is that named arguments are not that difficult to
>>> implement as long as you don't allow reordering. Much easier than
>>> const(Object)ref actually.
>>>
>>> <https://github.com/michelf/dmd/commit/673bae4982ff18a3d216bc1578f50d40f4d26d7a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Took
>>> me less time than what I took arguing about Flag!"".
>>
>> Love the attitude!! Let's see what Don and Walter think.
>
> I think it's clever and insightful how Michel's solution is implemented.
> It does not allow, however, for named arguments to be not in the same
> positions as unnamed ones.
>
> In other words, unlike struct field initializations, named arguments
> cannot appear in any order. I think people will find it an odd difference.

If we all get convinced that named parameters are worth it, I'm 
convinced Michel would be sufficiently motivated to address this 
limitation. I personally am lukewarm regarding the feature but I think 
many people would find it quite convenient.

Andrei