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

[Francesco Mecca]

On Friday, 15 May 2020 at 00:12:36 UTC, TheGag96 wrote:
> I totally think this DIP should go through, with no tedious 
> opt-in impediments to anything. There is just no good reason to 
> preemptively protect programmers at a language level from 
> making a stylistic choice you don't like. If they want to use 
> their named arguments in crazy ways (including reordering), 
> just let them. People who find them helpful for certain 
> situations can just use them distraction-free, and the people 
> don't want to can just... not. The solution is incredibly clear.

I don't think the DIP should go through if there is no widespread 
consensus.
D already has a mechanism for verbose function arguments that is 
sufficient in cases in which you want to be more explicit about 
parameters:
https://dlang.org/phobos/std_typecons.html#.Flag