Flag proposal

[KennyTM~]

On Jun 15, 11 01:18, so wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:01:20 +0300, KennyTM~ <kennytm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 14, 11 19:11, so wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Also i don't understand why some think allowing hybrid calls has any
>>> merit. Just search "named arguments" and first thing you'd see is calls
>>> with all arguments named, no exception. Allowing unnamed arguments and
>>> named arguments in one call doesn't make any sense to me, it is almost
>>> opposite to the reasons named arguments designed for, you don't even
>>> need to talk about its drawbacks like the complications and confusions.
>>
>> And if you think it's complicated, you're just thinking in a too
>> complicated way. The rule is simple.
>>
>> Say there is a function
>>
>> pure nothrow
>> S parseString(S=const(char)[], C)
>> (ref C[] input,
>> out ConversionResult result,
>> char quote='"',
>> bool recognizePrefix=true) if (...);
>>
>> and you call it as
>>
>> string s = `"hello"`;
>> ConversionResult detailResult;
>> auto parsed = parseString(s, recognizePrefix:false, result:detailResult);
>>
>> The first step is identify all positional arguments ('s' here), and
>> fill them in in-order.
>>
>> input <- s
>> result <- ...
>> quote <- ...
>> recognizePrefix <- ...
>>
>> next, we match the named args
>>
>> input <- s
>> result <- detailResult
>> quote <- ...
>> recognizePrefix <- false
>>
>> finally we fill in the optional parameters
>>
>> input <- s
>> result <- detailResult
>> quote <- '"'
>> recognizePrefix <- false
>>
>> what's so complicated? Actually, reordering creates more complication
>> than hybrid (e.g. ambiguity in selecting an overload).
>
> So complicated because it took you this long to match the parameters
> with the variables, you still need to check function definition because
> you have parameters that have no match. These are the very things named
> arguments needs to solve or am i missing something?
>
> You could just drop it and go read the function signature everytime,
> it'd save you time :P

What you're missing may be that what I'm outlining is how the /compiler/ 
matches the parameters. The /compiler/ of course needs to check the 
function definition every time, otherwise how could it emit errors when 
you give a wrong name? :)