DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Final Review

[Olivier FAURE]

On Saturday, 24 August 2019 at 16:36:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 8/23/19 6:23 PM, Walter Bright 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?

I kinda want to point out that neither you nor Walter have much 
ground to stand out when it comes to complaining about feedback 
being ignored.

When Walter posted DIP-1021, I gave feedback with detailed 
examples in multiple occasions (in PR comments and the review 
thread), wrote a draft for a DIP that will propose an alternate 
implementation, and posted a type system discussion when I 
stalled on a problem. I have yet to see any acknowledgment of 
that work from Walter (atila gave some feedback, though it was 
fairly surface-level).

I'm not saying I'm mad about that; but the way you're saying 
"Walter's proposal is obviously superior. Why didn't the author 
drop his DIP and make a new one based on Walter's idea instead?" 
seems a little naive of how the process tends to go.

People usually don't give up on their own ideas to champion 
someone else's alternative. I don't, you probably don't, and 
Walter certainly doesn't.