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

[Paulo Pinto]

On Tuesday, 12 May 2020 at 12:11:11 UTC, Gregory wrote:
> 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.

That is no longer the case as of C# 8, the rules have been made 
more flexible.