DIP 1020--Named Parameters--Community Review Round 1

[Daniel N]

On Monday, 8 April 2019 at 23:09:31 UTC, bauss wrote:
> On Monday, 8 April 2019 at 16:33:36 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
>> The interpretation of his proposal suggested by you (i.e. this 
>> call is ambiguous) is obviously a possible one, but not 
>> necessarily what Walter intended.
>
> And in that case it doesn't matter really because it's not a 
> situation that would ever happen.

Even if 'D' somehow defined that this is valid D code:

void x(int p1) {}
void x(int p2) {}

Some linkers would refuse to link it (including our own OPTLINK 
and the MS linker), since D has to support a great number of 
different linkers, we cannot mandate that all linkers in the 
world need to have a special force flag to override and link 
anyway just to be compatible with the above construct.

For that reason I don't think Walters comment is open for 
interpretation, the above program is ill-formed.

Even if, for compilation speed optimization reasons, the compiler 
might not be required to issue a diagnostic, it still doesn't 
change the fact that the program is ill-formed, another 
conforming D compiler should be allowed to reject that code.