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

[Arine]

On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 03:04:13 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 02:09:27 UTC, Arine wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 at 08:01:09 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>> On 19.05.20 04:35, Arine wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 at 01:07:38 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>> 
>>>> And that's better for readability? Both methods are equally 
>>>> as bad. That one may be worse because it is an undocumented 
>>>> "feature".
>>>> 
>>>
>>> I am not sure what your point is. Are you trying to argue 
>>> that the suggestion is on the same level or worse than the 
>>> originally proposed
>>>
>>> int foo(int _dkfjjiufheuehgthu, long 
>>> _yer_mother_was_a_hamster, double 
>>> _I_did_not_read_the_documentation);
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> If that is not your point, I think we have nothing to discuss.
>>
>> Both are equally as bad in terms of readability. One is worse 
>> because it uses an implementation detail that can change at 
>> any time.
>
> So if the implementation detail is standardized, would you 
> still object to this?
>
> -Alex

Both methods are terrible. A pull request that used either method 
in phobos would be rightfully rejected today. It doesn't bode 
well when such a destructive practice is suggested by the creator 
of a language, and then they completely fall silent from the 
discussion. I hope he doesn't have have the same holier than 
though mindset as that other individual that clearly stated they 
don't care about having any kind of discussion on the subject at 
all. That's fine by me, it's clear as night and day to me. 
Practicality seems to be going out the door lately anyways.