Pretty please: Named arguments

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Tuesday, March 01, 2011 11:22:17 Bekenn wrote:
> On 2/28/11 1:38 PM, Don wrote:
> > 1. It makes parameter names part of the API.
> 
> I wrote earlier that this would probably be the first time parameter
> names "leaked" into user code, but I was wrong.  Jacob Carlborg has
> pointed out his library implementation of this feature:
> 
> http://dsource.org/projects/orange/browser/orange/util/Reflection.d#L135
> 
> If you look through his implementation, you'll see that it uses the
> .stringof property to extract parameter names from the function
> definition.  In essence, parameter names are /already/ part of the API,
> because code can be written that depends on them.  And the fact that a
> library implementation exists specifically to facilitate the use of
> named arguments implies that code already /has/ been written that
> depends on parameter names.
> 
> Like it or not, parameter names are already part of the API.  Adding
> named arguments as a language feature doesn't change that.

You're talking about a third party library that's trying to hack in named 
arguments, not the language nor the standard library.

The parameter names of a function are _not_ currently part of its signature. You 
could have a .di file without any parameter names or with totally different 
parameter names than the original .d file and it would have _zero_ effect on 
anything calling those functions. The function signature does _not_ include the 
name of its parameters - just their types. Adding named arguments would change 
that.

- Jonathan M Davis