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

[aliak]

On Sunday, 9 June 2019 at 11:54:25 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Sunday, 9 June 2019 at 07:55:50 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
> wrote:
>> On 6/8/19 3:58 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
>>> 
>>> Reordering is definitely a very important feature. However, 
>>> this proposal is not going to be the last DIP about named 
>>> parameters, as is stressed in the proposal itself.
>>> 
>>> Generally, I think incremental improvements should be allowed.
>>
>> Sadly my vast and mostly unsuccessful experience with 
>> programming language design is that such is not to be done 
>> incrementally. Never. I will oppose a DIP that argues its 
>> utility by means of possible future DIPs. (For measure, don't 
>> forget I do not hold decision power any longer.) For named 
>> arguments, I very strongly believe that any DIP that does not 
>> allow reordering is a stillborn.
>
> I agree. Reordering is the main motivation. I've lost count of 
> how many times I've shaken my fist at the sky when trying to 
> change the working directory when calling std.process.execute.

I'm curious what the dev process is here? You write a function, 
start filling in it's parameters and you get it wrong. Ok, so you 
check the docs right? And then you fill in the arguments while 
looking at the docs right? Or?

Also do you think you'll have a similar experience with 
reorderable named parameters where instead of the position it is 
now the name of the argument? And then on top of that, if we 
allow non-named parameters to mix with named parameters, then 
what does reordering give you?