DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Final Review

[Dukc]

I feel this DIP is bashed a bit too heavily here.

I do share the concern of most people that the DIP should include 
at least some argument reordering. My impression is that you 
removed the reordering you had at community review one to avoid 
the `@named` parameter, that was not well received by some.

Unfortunately, preventing all argument reordering just does not 
work. Like many have said, such named parameters would be tedious 
and likely unpopular to use. But there is another problem too, 
one that had you to include argument reordering in the draft 
stage, I believe:

´´´
foo(int a, int b)
foo(double b, int a)
´´´

If the dip will consider argument reordering, a call `foo(a:3, 
b:3)` can be specified as an ambiguous call, triggering a 
compiler error. However, if your DIP as now is implemented, that 
call would bind to the first function, preventing ambiguity 
checking later on, without core breakage. As long as you have 
this problem, it defeats the purpose of "less-is-more" philosophy.

No, you need at least some form of argument reordering. It could 
be along the lines of what Walter proposed, or something like 
Rikki's base idea (named parameters being separated from unnamed 
ones on API, and overload only by unnamed params).

This all being said, you actually wrote a DIP. It's easy to bash 
the concept when one has to consider only the concept, not corner 
cases and specification. I don't agree with Andrei: writing a DIP 
with argument reordering would be a major undertaking, just as 
difficult and very possibly more so than this one with all the 
corner cases to consider. We can't except to easily find a 
champion for that.

Perhaps this DIP can be used incrementally after all, just not by 
including it to D as-is. If Rikki's DIP won't get through, and if 
someone wants to write a real DIP from Walter's proposal, a lot 
of the details are already ready if you paper is used as base. 
Even better, if you don't want to do it yourself, you can abandon 
the DIP. That way someone can just stick argument reordering in 
and go straight to community review past the draft queue (Or can 
they? Mike?).