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

[Timon Gehr]

On 19.05.20 10:01, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 19.05.20 04:35, Arine wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 at 01:07:38 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>> On 19.05.20 02:05, Arine wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 17 May 2020 at 13:25:35 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>>> On 14.05.20 07:57, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides, if you really don't want your users to use the parameter 
>>>>>> names,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      int foo(int _dkfjjiufheuehgthu, long 
>>>>>> _yer_mother_was_a_hamster, double _I_did_not_read_the_documentation);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and I bet they'll get the message.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or you can just use `int foo(int, long, double);`.
>>>>
>>>> Not that useful for open source code (the majority of D). Don't 
>>>> think I even know of or have used a single library that only 
>>>> provides .di files.
>>>
>>> int foo(int, long, double){
>>>     return cast(int)(_param_0+_param_1+_param_2);
>>> }
>>
>> And that's better for readability? Both methods are equally as bad. 
>> That one may be worse because it is an undocumented "feature".
>>
> 
> I am not sure what your point is. Are you trying to argue that the 
> suggestion is on the same level or worse than the originally proposed
> 
> int foo(int _dkfjjiufheuehgthu, long _yer_mother_was_a_hamster, double 
> _I_did_not_read_the_documentation);
> 
> ?
> 
> If that is not your point, I think we have nothing to discuss.

Actually, even if that is your point, I don't think we will reach an 
agreement, nor would it be important to do so.