DIP 1020--Named Parameters--Community Review Round 2
rikki at cattermole.co.nz
Wed Sep 11 07:18:12 UTC 2019
On 11/09/2019 7:01 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> However I disagree with your rationale.
> My suggestion is the leading alternative to yours, and the DIP needs to
> address it. The DIP gives no rationale for why reordering is undesirable
> (a link to an argument is not enough), as that question will
> interminably come up, and needs to be solid. It needs to justify being
> different from the struct literal syntax, because being different (and
> less capable) is almost guaranteed to be a source of problems. (In
> particular, struct literals and function calls cannot become a unified
> syntax, as they almost are today.)
Okay that I need to think about.
But I need to confirm with you before I do this, is this for the
replacement of in place struct initialization syntax?
If so I want to solve that, but I need to ask you how you would want it
done. Since it touches upon .init, it makes me a little concerned
because of dragons.
More information about the Digitalmars-d