"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.791.1307742081.14074.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > On 2011-06-10 14:28, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: >> On 6/10/11, Lutger Blijdestijn <lutger.blijdest...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Changing a name will now break client code. >> >> The flag template suffers from the same issue. > > Not really. There's a big difference between changing the type name and > changing the parameter name. You can freely change the parameter name > without > changing the type name. Also, you can overload on type names, allowing you > to > deprecate the old name and replace it with a new one gradually. You > _can't_ > overload on parameter names, so you _can't_ have a deprecation path with > named > arguments without renaming the function itself, which is _way_ worse. The > difference between the two isn't even comparable. > > - Jonathan M Davis
I *really* think that whole issue is a complete triviality, but: 1. Maybe you *could* allow overloading on name, forcing at least that particular param to be named: void foo(int oldName); void foo(int newName); foo(oldName:7); // Ok foo(newName:7); // Ok foo(7); // Error void bar(int num); bar(num:7); // Ok bar(7); // Ok 2. This: void foo(int newName); deprecated void foo(int oldName); foo(oldName:7); // Error: Deprecated foo(newName:7); // Ok foo(7); // Ok
