DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Final Review

[Olivier FAURE]

On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 at 23:08:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> A significant difference here is that Walter is one of the two 
> people who approves DIPs. So, ignoring his feedback when 
> writing a DIP is likely to mean that it's going to be rejected.

The "Community Review Round 2" section mentions Walter's proposal 
as a possible superset of the current proposal.

I think the problem with this DIP isn't ignoring feedback (it has 
changed a lot since its initial iteration) so much as a lack of 
integration of that feedback into a coherent analysis.

Like, this DIP has evolved by adding and dropping features to 
address complaints from reviewers, but it still doesn't really 
justify these changes or explore the relevant trade-offs and 
their practical consequences.

An ideal DIP would list the possible implementations, their 
upsides, their downside, how to leverage the former and mitigate 
the latter, and why a given implementation is better for D than 
the others.

With all that said, I still think the way Andrei asked "well why 
didn't you just use Walter's version and ignore everything else?" 
is a little presumptuous.