DIP 1020--Named Parameters--Community Review Round 2

rikki cattermole 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 mailing list