Pretty please: Named arguments

[Bruno Medeiros]

On 08/03/2011 21:37, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:29:28 -0500, Bruno Medeiros
> <brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail> wrote:
>
>> On 28/02/2011 22:13, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dunno, vim doesn't do that for me currently.
>>
>> I feel tempted to say something very short and concise regarding vim
>> and emacs, but it would require a large amount of justification to
>> properly expose such point. I am planning to write a blog post about
>> that, but I haven't gotten to it yet.
>>
>> > Also, if reviewing code on github, there is no ide.
>> >
>> > -Steve
>>
>> A) Should we give any significant weight to very minute and relatively
>> infrequent code reading situations, like web-based code reviewing in
>> github or whatever, or reading code in books? I doubt so.
>
> I contest that web based code reviewing is going to be infrequent, since
> all major phobos changes now must be reviewed by 2 peers before inclusion.
>
> Please look at a recent pull request review I participated in, without
> ever opening an editor/ide. GitHub provides very good collaborative
> review. If I have to install an IDE that I only use for reviewing, um...
> no.
>
> https://github.com/jmdavis/phobos/commit/aca1a2d7cfe7d5e934668e06028b78ffb6796245
>
>

Hum, looking at that GitHub pull request (first time I have done so), 
GitHub does look quite nice in terms of code reviewing functionality.
So, hum, I do agree that web-based code reviewing might become 
significantly frequent (if it is not already). (Note that I am not 
talking about Phobos development only)

Although in the particular cased of named arguments, I still don't feel 
it is worthwhile. Not unless it could be done in a very orthogonal way 
(both in semantics and syntax), and even so it should likely be very low 
priority (as in, not any time soon...).


>> B) If the pull request is large, it should be near effortless to put
>> those changes in the IDE and review them there.
>
> Again, don't have one.
>
> -Steve

Just because you don't have or don't use an IDE, that is not an argument 
against doing B). What should be considered is whether it is worthwhile 
to review it in an IDE or do it the web application, for a given change 
request.
At the moment, probably not (although I would say it depends a lot on 
the D code and the underlying project). But in the future things might 
change. It could even be that a web-based application like GitHub would 
grow some IDE features, like the one about parameters context information.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer