DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Community Review Round 1

[12345swordy]

On Friday, 15 February 2019 at 22:17:28 UTC, Ron J wrote:
> On Friday, 15 February 2019 at 19:11:55 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>> ...
>> D should not make the fatal mistake of "persevering backwards 
>> capability at all cost" scenario, that what c++ is for.
>> ...
>
> I agree with this and despite breaking code indeed sucks, for a 
> language like D which has a very small user base, I think it 
> should go for it instead of adding new properties for handling 
> different cases and trying to be like C++.
>
> In fact look for example C++ 17 or 20 and you can clearly see 
> that they are trying hard to force people over new 
> features/ways of programming and hoping the old "habits" go way.
>
> Ron.

The "Old Way" aka C++98 will still be used simply because they 
still support it. If they are serious about preventing people 
from coding the "Old Way" then they simply need to stop 
supporting the "Old Way". Until then the dinosaurs will still 
type C++98 code.

-Alex