DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Community Review Round 2

[Jonathan Marler]

On Thursday, 6 June 2019 at 19:30:36 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 June 2019 at 19:17:38 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> [...]
>
> By the way, I like what the DIP is trying to do, where it is 
> trying to enable named parameters using the "least common 
> denominator".   It attempts to do as little as possible to 
> increase the likelihood of acceptance and leaves room for 
> future improvements to address things like re-ordering/omission 
> of default parameters, features which may or may not be 
> justified but shouldn't keep us from having named parameters.
>
> However, the way in which it was designed where it suddenly 
> exposes the parameter names of all functions to all callers is 
> not what we want.  I think the "least common denominator" is to 
> provide some way for the function definition to distinguish 
> between named and un-named parameters. Something like this:
>
> void foo(int a, int b, int c, alias int d, int e, int f)
>              ^                         ^
>   unnamed parameters (left of alias)   named parameters (right 
> of alias)
>
> foo(1, 2, 3, d:4, e:5, f:6)

One more thought, probably should be `public` instead of `alias` 
to enabled named parameters:

void drawRect(public int x, int y, int width, int height);

drawRect(x: 0, y: 0, width: 1, height: 1);



void calculateProduct(int[] values, public int multipler, public 
bool goFast, Allocator* allocator);

calculateProduct(value, multiplier: 7, goFast: false, allocator: 
null);