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

jmh530 john.michael.hall at gmail.com
Fri Sep 13 19:48:19 UTC 2019

On Friday, 13 September 2019 at 18:29:56 UTC, rikki cattermole 
> On 14/09/2019 5:49 AM, M.M. wrote:
>> I wish they could find the energy to come up with a new DIP..
> No point on my end.
> I may as well explain why I created DIP 1020 officially now 
> that it is dead.
> The reason is signatures.
> [snip]

I feel like this is an argument you should have made much 
earlier...like...in the DIP...

You are getting frustrated because others are not seeing your 
vision (butchering the DIP). However, we are not privy to what 
you have in the back of your mind (type signatures) without those 
thoughts being clearly spelled out. People were evaluating DIP 
1020 on its merits and Walter's suggestions on its merits. DIP 
1020 doesn't mention type signatures and why your version of 
named parameters enables that pattern. Walter's idea may or may 
not enable your vision of type signatures (I have no idea without 
more details...and even then may have no idea), but that was 
never mentioned as a justification for the DIP.

As an aside, you may also find some of the discussion from the 
DIP 1023 review thread interesting [1]. Later in the thread, I 
describe the possibility of using alias templates as types and 
incorporating Atila's concepts library to provide improved error 
messages. Of course, there is no run-time component here.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list