Will D ever get optional named parameters?

[Shammah Chancellor via Digitalmars-d]

On 2014-10-13 19:18:38 +0000, Walter Bright said:

> On 10/13/2014 7:23 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> On 10/13/14, 5:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2014 1:29 AM, "岩倉 澪" wrote:
>>>> Are there good reasons not to add something like this to the language,
>>>> or is it
>>>> simply a matter of doing the work? Has it been discussed much?
>>> 
>>> Named parameters interact badly with overloading.
>> 
>> Could you give an example?
> 
> Nothing requires function overloads to use the same names in the same 
> order for parameters. "color" can be the name for parameter 1 in one 
> overload and for parameter 3 in another and not be there at all for a 
> third.
> 
> Parameters need not be named in D:
> 
>     int foo(long);
>     int foo(ulong x);
> 
> Named parameters are often desired so that default arguments need not 
> be in order at the end:
> 
>     int foo(int x = 5, int y);
>     int foo(int y, int z);
> 
> To deal with all this, a number of arbitrary rules will have to be 
> created. Overloading is already fairly complex, with the implemented 
> notions of partial ordering. Even if this could all be settled, is it 
> worth it? Can anyone write a document explaining this to people? Do 
> people really want pages and pages of specification for this?

Not to mention, that despite C# supporting this, MSFT's code analysis 
generates a warning and instead recommends providing more overloads.

-S.