DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Final Review

[Kagamin]

On Saturday, 24 August 2019 at 16:36:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> 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?

I had an impression that field matching rules are only obvious to 
the compiler. Is it simpler in the sense that the code written 
for structs can be used for arguments?