What to do about default function arguments

[Daniel Murphy]

"Walter Bright" <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jnagar$2d8k$1 at digitalmars.com...
>A subtle but nasty problem - are default arguments part of the type, or 
>part of the declaration?
>
>    See http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3866
>
> Currently, they are both, which leads to the nasty behavior in the bug 
> report.
>
> The problem centers around name mangling. If two types mangle the same, 
> then they are the same type. But default arguments are not part of the 
> mangled string. Hence the schizophrenic behavior.
>
> But if we make default arguments solely a part of the function 
> declaration, then function pointers (and delegates) cannot have default 
> arguments. (And maybe this isn't a bad thing?)

>From what I remember, function pointer parameter names have similar 
problems.  It never made any sense to me to have default parameters or 
parameter names as part of the type.