On 6/10/11 3:30 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I really see Flag more as a way to try to rationalize avoiding adding named
parameters to the language.
There are fights that I believe are important and others that I think
are less so. I find name parameters nice to have but more in the second
category. There's just so much stuff that's more important.
And yes, the legibility of "foo(Flag!"param".yes, Flag!"otherParam".no);",
Fair point. I figured this should be easier:
foo(yes!"param", no!"otherParam");
See
https://github.com/andralex/phobos/commit/84c75336a4ef04b4c3b1924d7ac9329e744ab8e7
combined with the frequency of need for such a thing,
People have found 7 uses of the yes/no enum pattern in Phobos plus a
couple others where it should - in 135KLoC.
and the complete
inability of Flag to address the problem for anything but bool,
Flag can be made to incorporate arbitrary categorical types, I just
haven't done that yet so as to not complicate implementation too early.
the
inability to document it separately (as Jonathan Davis pointed out),
This is an issue shared by named parameters, and for such stuff the
current enums work just fine. Now who is rationalizing? :o)
is all
definitely much much more than enough to warrant adding a tried-and-proven
feature that's become standard in damn near every other modern language.
I'm actually less convinced than before having read your arguments.
Andrei
