DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Final Review

[H. S. Teoh]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:41:21PM +0000, Yuxuan Shui via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 23 August 2019 at 16:47:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> > Exactly the same objections I have against this DIP.  OT1H it's
> > trying to get named arguments into the language, but OTOH it takes
> > out what I would consider to be two of the most important reasons to
> > *have* named arguments: skipping default parameters, and
> > out-of-order argument passing.  Therefore, it essentially nullifies
> > its own raison d'etre.
> 
> It DOES NOT prevent them from being added later. Like I have already
> reiterated multiple times, this is not the be-all and end-all named
> arguments DIP.

And that's exactly the problem: this DIP wants to introduce named
arguments, but proposes a subset of functionality so weak that doesn't
even offer what I consider to be two *major* advantages of having named
arguments.  Which begs the question, why even bother?  Why not just take
us all the way there and do a full DIP of the "be-all and end-all" of
named arguments?


[...]
> > Furthermore, if this DIP hadn't shot itself in its own foot by not
> > allowing out-of-order argument passing and skipping default
> > parameters, then it would have actually made overly-long parameter
> > lists actually *acceptable*, in the sense that the function could
> > just supply default values for most of the parameters, and the
> > caller can just name and pass the few arguments that it wants to be
> > different from the defaults, and the rest don't have to be
> > explicitly specified.
> 
> It does not always make sense to supply default values for parameters.
> 
> e.g createWindow(int width, int height)
> 
> What default value do you give them?
[...]

Then don't give them any defaults.  What makes you think you have to?


T

-- 
Without geometry, life would be pointless. -- VS