2011/6/10 Andrei Alexandrescu <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org>: > On 6/10/11 1:52 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote: >> >> On 10/06/2011 19:06, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>> >>> On 6/10/11 12:42 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/06/2011 17:15, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/94 >>>>> >>>>> Discuss! >>>>> >>>>> Andrei >>>> >>>> I really *really* don't like this. It's ugly and verbose, and a pathetic >>>> work around for the lack of named parameters. Either support named >>>> parameters or not, don't have an ugly half-baked work-around. >>> >>> This is not half-baked. It's pretty much it. >> >> My choice of wording was poor, sorry. >> >>> Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, but I fail to see how the added >>> punctuation makes Flag!"param".yes significantly more verbose than param >>> : true. >> >> foo(param: true, otherParam: false); >> foo(Flag!"param".yes, Flag!"otherParam".no); >> >> I don't know about you, but I find the former is far more legible. I'd >> hate to see my code littered with Flag!"something". > > I agree it's more legible. The crucial question is whether the added > legibility warrants adding a new feature to the language. > >>> The problem that named parameters are still optional remains. Or we need >>> to add one extra language feature to specify required named parameters. >> >> void foo(bool param, bool otherParam, bool thisOneIsntRequired = false); >> >> Call it with or without named parameters, two are required, one is not. >> >> foo(otherParam: true, param: false); >> foo(true, false); >> foo(otherParam: true, param: false, thisOneIsntRequired: true); >> >> Would all be valid. > > The second call is problematic because it still allows bad style in calls. > > > Andrei >
I agree, introducing a syntax for required named parameters sounds like it would entail baggage of similar weight. Torarin
