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

rikki cattermole rikki at cattermole.co.nz
Sun Sep 15 14:50:06 UTC 2019

On 16/09/2019 2:32 AM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> 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 it.
> 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.).

Walter has begun working on it as stated on his Twitter account[0].

I have given him feedback to help improve it via Twitter. It has a long 
way to go given the feedback the DIPs 1019+1020 received (which IMHO has 
set a precedent for what it needs to include).

[0] https://twitter.com/WalterBright/status/1173165009926443009

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list