Unnamed parameter with default value

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 at 15:25:22 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
>> Of course this should be accepted.
>
> I want to apologize, that came out sounding condescending, I 
> didn't mean it that way.

No problem. Thanks for clarifying this for me, I was just wanted
to understand if/why this was useful (most likely scenario), or
if it was similar to those cases where the frontend accepts
nonsensical declaration qualifiers.