I'm just bringing up the fact. Why would you need to check the function
signature when reading
MoveWindow(hWnd, loc.x, loc.y, myWin.width, myWin.height,
bRepaint:true);
? It's clear what each argument does. If you feel the need of
duplicating the same information, fine, write
MoveWindow(hWnd:hWnd, X:loc.x, Y:loc.y,
nWidth:myWin.width, nHeight:myWin.height, bRepaint:true);
in your code. But don't make it mandatory, it's a waste of time and
space when the writer just wants to clarify that 'true' is a bRepaint.
Waste of time? so is writing docs and comments, so is checking the library
everytime you have trouble understanding a call. It is designed to ease
understanding your own or others code. I have no idea how you can think
about writing a few chars more as if something bad. In programming we
waste our times not when we are actually writing but while doing
everything else!
Looks like i am just repeating myself but i don't understand how is
pssing constants meaningless and variables, and why do you even need
named arguments for those?
enum x=...
enum y=...
...
fun(x, y)
If you want to disregard named argument, why go the complicated route
and define enums? You could do as well
fun(/*x*/0, /*y*/0);
No, you are the one suggesting that, in your example you called
MoveWindow(hwnd) and said it was all you need, then i gave this example to
prove if all you need is that, you don't need NAs anyways since it is just
so easy to treat other things as "hwnd".
(and yes I'm currently using it.) But the point is it's ugly. Heck why
do we need to defend NA. My point is only "hybrid should be allowed if I
want to".
It is ugly but it is not heck, it does nothing, it gives you no
guaranties, compiler does no matching. It is no better than fun(0, 0). We
came this far but we still don't think the NAs same way, and i am starting
to lose my hope explaining myself.
Yet all well-known languages that support named arguments that support
reordering also support hybrid. (C# 4, VB 6, Python, CLisp, ...)
This is not an argument.
Neither is 'Just search "named arguments" and first thing you'd see is
calls with all arguments named, no exception.'
Why not? first thing you would encounter is its prototype, its best usage
that makes most sense, i told it because you seem to give its primary
function no value at all.
Maybe another argument: D's static struct initializer already supports
hybrid and reordering. Extending that to function arguments is natural.
------------------------------------
struct S { int x; int y; }
void main() {
S s0 = {4, 5};
S s1 = {x:4, 5};
S s2 = {4, y:5};
S s3 = {x:4, y:5};
// S s4 = {y:4, 5}; // error
S s5 = {y:5, x:4};
}
------------------------------------
I didn't know they work this way, i agree it is a good argument (finally
we agree on something!)
Though i have to say it looks quite confusing and verbose (rules).
Then again, it looks like i am alone on this one, quite possibly i am
wrong :)
