DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Final Review

[nkm1]

On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 at 16:47:24 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> 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.
>
> It _has not been_ ignored. But, it is just a feedback, not a 
> DIP. So, due process, it is not to be treated with the same 
> weight as a DIP.

So the DIP should definitely address the designated initializers 
thing (presumably in the "Prior Work" section). It should explain 
why named parameters must use different rules. Otherwise, the DIP 
is incomplete.

>> 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.
>
> Yes, so please, please write a DIP for that proposal.

The currently discussed DIP can be rejected without writing any 
new one...