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

[H. S. Teoh]

On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 06:57:16PM +0000, Olivier FAURE via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sunday, 3 March 2019 at 15:07:04 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> > Well, since the current DIP is entirely opt-in from the function
> > author side anyway, it's a bit of a moot point. I was responding
> > rather to someone who was arguing that it should _not_ be opt in for
> > function authors.
> 
> My point was, the DIP should be opt-out, because even then library
> maintainers can always change argument names if they want to, without
> breaking code. And even if code does break, it's an extremely easy fix
> (as in, "change a few names until it compiles", not "refactor
> everything").
> 
> Like, okay, I get that some people are opposed to the very idea of
> parameter names being important information to keep track of, but
> pragmatically, the costs of making named arguments the default are far
> outweighed by the benefits.

IMNSHO, even if parameter names aren't important information to keep
track of, being forced to accomodate renamings would motivate people to
actually invent useful, self-explanatory parameter names rather than
`func(int a, int b, int c)` or worse, `func(int, int, int)`, with no
indication as to what the parameter is supposed to mean.


T

-- 
WINDOWS = Will Install Needless Data On Whole System -- CompuMan