Discussion Thread: DIP 1030--Named Arguments--Final Review

[Gregory]

On Tuesday, 12 May 2020 at 05:36:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/11/2020 5:48 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> The biggest problem I had with this DIP still remains -- You 
>> cannot forward the "namedness" of parameters to a subtype.
>
> I see this as something you can propose as another DIP to 
> enhance DIP1030 after it is incorporated.

It's a feature that would be lost, I don't think named arguments 
should be included without this feature. Without ironing out the 
details now, who's to say that a suitable solution exists to the 
problem? There's no obvious solution to a problem that should be 
solved.


I also don't like that you can rearrange the arguments into a 
different order. Especially that you can put default arguments in 
the middle. By doing so you are forcing users to use named 
arguments or not use defaults at all. As an example, in C# only 
allows defaults at the end, and named arguments still need to be 
in the correct order. I don't see *any* benefit, nor does the DIP 
describe what benefit this provides. On the other hand this makes 
it more difficult to read, especially (as with the example) both 
functions have the same exact names for their parameters. THIS is 
a feature that should be removed, and if it is deemed necessary 
at a later date then it can be incorporated with another DIP. 
Otherwise trying to fix this later on when it is already in use 
will be almost impossible without breaking any code that uses it.