DIP 1020--Named Parameters--Community Review Round 1

[AltFunction1]

On Sunday, 7 April 2019 at 08:58:36 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 April 2019 at 08:48:44 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
>> On Sunday, 7 April 2019 at 03:09:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2019 5:33 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Here's a much simpler proposal, based on the recognition that 
>>> D already has named parameters:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> This is really great, as there is also a DIP by Sebastian 
>> which goes into the same direction as you proposed.
>> https://github.com/wilzbach/DIPs/blob/3068c4bfff44063ad34825baf8c35906c5ad787c/DIPs/DIP1xxx-sw.md
>>
>> The DIP is a little bit broader,
>> S(a:1, b:2) should be usuable at more places too.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Andre
>
> Walter's idea correctly handles default arguments unlike the 
> DIP you linked.

I would not call this an idea. This is rather an evidence based 
on observation of the nature...

I don't care personally about the feature but what does really 
worry me is that things like `@named` or any other syntactic 
changes tend to turn D into an incoherent language.

The problem is that someone needs to write the correct proposal. 
IIRC Bright is not pro named argument and he said that he needs a 
solid DIP to be convinced.