DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Community Review Round 2

[Yuxuan Shui]

On Thursday, 6 June 2019 at 13:47:57 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> This naturally makes it hard to craft a compromise. I believe 
> that Named Arguments Lite is an attempt to guess which set of 
> compromises will put off the least people while being 
> acceptable to the most and delivering at least some value to 
> everybody who wants at least some part of named arguments.

Thanks for put it so clearly.

> For me, the lack of ability to skip default arguments is a 
> dealbreaker, particularly if accepting this proposal would mean 
> that it would be the face of named arguments in D forevermore, 
> but if it was "this or literally nothing else ever" I'd be in 
> favor. So I guess the question rests on whether if this is 
> rejected, there'll be a "D Named Arguments Proper" after. And, 
> uh, looking at "shared", that seems unlikely for at least 
> several years. So to me the question is "this or nothing", and 
> even though it doesn't solve the main usecase I'd want it for 
> (verbose constructors, which *needs* the ability to skip 
> default arguments), it is at least better than the alternative, 
> which is nothing. Though of course any change that would leave 
> the door open for skipping parameters would be welcome.

I think skipping default arguments will a really simple and 
straightforward DIP on top of this. Especially given the recent 
revision of the DIP process.

I don't see how lacking that feature could be a dealbreaker.