On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 09:50:15 +0000, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 05:39:06 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
>> I'd be very interested in reading more about those reasons beyond FUD.
>> The arguments in favor have been repeated many times over, and the only
>> argument against that I've heard ('overloading and named arguments do
>> not play well together') doesn't seem valid, given the precedent in
>> nim.
>
> The only problems I can think of is if they affect name mangling,
> because then you would need to specify the names on each call. As long
> as they are optional syntax sugar, like in ketmar's POC implementation,
> they will probably work well.they have to affect mangling for templates, though, if we want the ability to forward calls "as is" in templates. but i believe that this can be dealt with later -- i.e. in another PR.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
