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

[Arine]

On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 at 08:01:09 UTC, 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.

Both are equally as bad in terms of readability. One is worse 
because it uses an implementation detail that can change at any 
time.