DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Final Review

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 8/24/19 1:00 PM, 12345swordy wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 August 2019 at 16:36:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 8/23/19 6:23 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2019 3:54 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> I reiterate my previous opinion:
>>>
>>> https://digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/DIP_1019--Named_Arguments_Lite--Community_Review_Round_2_327714.html#N327755 
>>>
>>
>> We have two competing proposals for named arguments. Walter's 
>> alternative has been consistently ignored, though I notice Walter 
>> mentioned it more than once. That would be totally fine if the 
>> proposals were better, but it doesn't take much to figure Walter's is 
>> obviously way better, simpler, and integrates beautifully within the 
>> existing language.
>>
>> This entire dynamics strikes me as massively counterproductive. Why 
>> are we doing this?
> 
> ...because no one write a DIP on walter suggestions?

That's why I say - it's so wasteful. Any of the current proposers could 
have written a quality DIP in a fraction of the time it took them to 
write their inferior DIPs, get it in, and get full credit for it. The 
mind boggles.