DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Community Review Round 1

[Yuxuan Shui]

On Friday, 15 February 2019 at 19:11:55 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> On Friday, 15 February 2019 at 18:26:34 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
>> Yes, one of my "design goal" is to maximize my chance :)
>
> Increasing the chance of this DIP being accepted by avoiding 
> code deprecation shouldn't be any DIP design goal. We shouldn't 
> reject good design just because it may break people code.
>
> That is THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE WITH THE C++ COMMITTEE! If I were 
> so worried about breaking code when introducing new features I 
> would use c++! Which guess what? The readability is horrible! 
> So god awful! They are STILL stuck with using header files in 
> spite of introducing modules! I can go on and on about this, 
> but it be pointless, because they have such a religious 
> devotion to backwards compatibility that I just gave up on them.
>
> D should not make the fatal mistake of "persevering backwards 
> capability at all cost" scenario, that what c++ is for.
>
> Argue that the benefit of readability overweight the cost of 
> breaking peoples code, which can be easily fix with the rename 
> feature that comes with IDE and tools. Stand your ground. 
> Please! I do not want to go around and beg package makers to 
> label their functions @named for readability sake!
>
> -Alex

I am not saying "we should never break any code". I am deferring 
that decision to someone else. If someone want to make named 
parameters opt-out instead of opt-in, they can do so on top of 
this DIP. I am just not doing that in my proposal.