DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Final Review

[matheus]

On Saturday, 24 August 2019 at 01:09:48 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> Personally, I'm against named arguments in general. They make 
> the parameter names part of the API, which adds another set of 
> names that you have to get right up front and which will be 
> bike-shedded to death. The _only_ use case IMHO where they add 
> any real value is when you have a long parameter list where 
> most of the parameters having default arguments. Such functions 
> are usually a bad design, so I'm fine with not having named 
> arguments in the language to make such designs seem more 
> reasonable. If your parameter list is long enough that it 
> doesn't work to go by the order of the arguments, then you 
> already have a problem. But if we're going to add named 
> arguments, then IMHO, the rare case where it actually makes 
> sense to have a lot of parameters with default arguments is 
> what named arguments are there to solve. So, if the DIP can't 
> solve that, then IMHO, it's just making the language worse to 
> no benefit.

+1.

Matheus.