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

[12345swordy]

On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 02:09:27 UTC, Arine wrote:
> 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:
>>>> [...]
>>> 
>>> 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.

So if the implementation detail is standardized, would you still 
object to this?

-Alex