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

Yuxuan Shui yshuiv7 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 15 14:32:41 UTC 2019

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.)

That is fair. But keep in mind there is a difference here. DIP 
1019/1020 are _ready_, meaning they can start to be implemented 
once approved. OTOH, the better design is still just an idea, and 
no one seems to be willing to take on the task to write a DIP for 

Is it a good idea to stall a useful feature indefinitely because 
there is some potential better design?

(Yes, I'm bitter and biased, but I still this is a legitimate 
question to ask.).

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list