Discussion Thread: DIP 1030--Named Arguments--Final Review

[12345swordy]

On Tuesday, 12 May 2020 at 22:01:00 UTC, bachmeier wrote:


> I wasn't going to comment on this, but...yes, it makes perfect 
> sense for the developer to opt in.

No, it does not make sense for the developer to opt in as the opt 
in process is done by the user here. You fear of code breakage 
due to name change still exist in this scenario, even if did make 
it opt in.

> Maybe you don't want someone calling arguments by name.

Which I found the reasons being brought forward by this weak at 
best, nonissue at worst. If you end up in a situation where you 
frequently chaining names of things, then you are doing something 
very wrong.

> Making a change like this *and* forcing it on everyone is a 
> change that belongs in D 3.0.

Nonsense. The d language already does that already via a 
desperation process. The most recent change is the dip 25 start 
being forced on developers. This isn't c++ here. Making it opt-in 
will kill the adaptation of said feature, as many libraries have 
need to be modify and recompile which will require signficant 
amount of time here.

>"C# forces it on everyone" is not
> an argument.

No, the argument is there has been no apocalypse case scenario in 
the c# community which results from changing the name argument 
ever sense it was introduce in 4.0.