On 6/10/11 6:26 PM, bearophile wrote:
Andrei:
That's good evidence that introducing named parameters would be
quite involved.
It's also good evidence that Martin Odersky, one of the most
intelligent language designers alive today, is willing to do a lot to
support named arguments in his language :-)
I have all respect for Odersky's competence, but that is beside the
point. Design decisions are always taken in a context, and it's not
impossible he would've had decided otherwise in a different context.
D is a rich, powerful language _now_. It has classic features present in
many languages, and a few features that are not present in many. Their
full combination is not present in any other language, and creates a
unique context.
We've been historically trigger happy about discussing adding features
in this group. This is not unique to D - all languages underwent the
same process. But at this point it is a necessity that we start
migrating our mindset from an endless wishlist - towards finding
ingenious solutions within the language. Again, this is the case for
every single language there is. Combining existing features towards new
ends is in some ways more difficult than language design because you
play within a confined ground, and I am a bit disappointed that a few
posters have shown only contempt for such an effort.
Probably implementing tuple unpacking syntax sugar too needs some not
small changes, but they are well worth it (of those two features I
think tuple unpacking syntax sugar is more important than named
arguments).
What's wrong with myTuple.expand?
Andrei
