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

[Jonathan Marler]

On Friday, 13 September 2019 at 07:56:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> 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.)

Thank you for saying this Walter.  This is going to save so many 
people so much time.