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
wrote:
> 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.
[1]
https://forum.dlang.org/thread/dnyqxmgdazczwmmvayjx@forum.dlang.org
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list