DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Final Review

H. S. Teoh hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx
Sat Aug 24 01:26:48 UTC 2019


On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 07:09:48PM -0600, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> [...] But if we're going to add named arguments, then IMHO, the rare
> case where it actually makes sense to have a lot of parameters with
> default arguments is what named arguments are there to solve. So, if
> the DIP can't solve that, then IMHO, it's just making the language
> worse to no benefit.
[...]

Yeah, that's why I said, this DIP kinda nullifies its own raison d'etre.
I withhold judgment on the value of named arguments in general, but at
the very least, this DIP could have offered its primary benefits, which
to me are (1) reordered arguments, and (2) skipping default arguments.

Without these two primary benefits, it's hard for me to imagine how this
DIP could pull its own weight.  It's like promising to cook chicken pot
pie, but when the dish arrives there's only pie and no chicken.  Who
would pay for that?


T

-- 
IBM = I'll Buy Microsoft!


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list