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

[Walter Bright]

I'm going to be blunt, so shields up!

For DIP 1020 and DIP 1019, I keep trying to nudge things in the direction of a 
better design:

https://digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/DIP_1020--Named_Parameters--Community_Review_Round_1_325299.html#N325627

All to no avail. It pains me a great deal to see all this effort and discussion 
going down the drain on designs that are both more complex and inadequate. The 
authors have exhibited little or no interest in either adopting my suggestions 
or explaining why theirs are better.

Andrei and Atila have tried as well.

This has gone on long enough. DIP 1019 and 1020 are not going to be approved.

(It is clear that a lot of time was spend on the DIPs, and they are well written 
and presented. The authors should be proud of them. It's just that we have a 
better design.)