DIP 1030--Named Arguments--Community Review Round 1 Discussion

[12345swordy]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2020 at 09:15:05 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi 
wrote:
> On Monday, 10 February 2020 at 21:29:41 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>
>> Yes, I have encounter the "API breakage" counter argument in 
>> other threads already. Still not convinced that it is a big 
>> issue as they make it out to be.
>
> I don't know since when you are around in D-land, but I'm here 
> since pre-1.0. Not ad hominem, but believe me, I think it's 
> difficult to understand the immane efforts to convince the 
> leadership that breakage for a solid reason is not an evil 
> thing.
>
> The pendulum is waving between "breakage is not even taken in 
> account" to "let's introduce more ways to have MORE breakage 
> opportunity in the future".
>
> Maybe it's not a "bit issue" for someone, Walter included, but 
> that's non sense, plain and simple.
>
> Until I will see a shift from 'virtual by default' to 'final by 
> default' mentality, aka let's try to reduce FUTURE opportunity 
> for breakage, I will push toward that direction.
>
> /P
Then use cpp if you hate future code breakage that much. The 
appeal of d to me is that it is not afraid to break code if it 
turns out to be a bad idea or that the improvements outweigh the 
breakage.

-Alex