DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Final Review

[12345swordy]

On Saturday, 24 August 2019 at 16:36:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 8/23/19 6:23 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 8/23/2019 3:54 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
>>> [...]
>> 
>> 
>> I reiterate my previous opinion:
>> 
>> https://digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/DIP_1019--Named_Arguments_Lite--Community_Review_Round_2_327714.html#N327755
>
> We have two competing proposals for named arguments. Walter's 
> alternative has been consistently ignored, though I notice 
> Walter mentioned it more than once. That would be totally fine 
> if the proposals were better, but it doesn't take much to 
> figure Walter's is obviously way better, simpler, and 
> integrates beautifully within the existing language.
>
> This entire dynamics strikes me as massively counterproductive. 
> Why are we doing this?

...because no one write a DIP on walter suggestions?