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

[12345swordy]

On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 20:01:51 UTC, Arine wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 03:04:13 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>> 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
>
> Both methods are terrible. A pull request that used either 
> method in phobos would be rightfully rejected today. It doesn't 
> bode well when such a destructive practice is suggested by the 
> creator of a language, and then they completely fall silent 
> from the discussion. I hope he doesn't have have the same 
> holier than though mindset as that other individual that 
> clearly stated they don't care about having any kind of 
> discussion on the subject at all. That's fine by me, it's clear 
> as night and day to me. Practicality seems to be going out the 
> door lately anyways.


void fun(int,int)
_paramater[0] alias x;
_paramater[1] alias y;
}

I don't see anything "destructive" about this, given that we have 
the alias feature.

-Alex