Pretty please: Named arguments

[Jim]

Jonathan M Davis Wrote:

> 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


Neither are aliases signatures but they can still be imported. If the library writer choose to expose argument names in the .di file then I'd say they are part of the API.