On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 09:50:15 +0000, Marc Schütz wrote:

> On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 05:39:06 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
>> I'd be very interested in reading more about those reasons beyond FUD. The arguments in favor have been repeated many times over, and the only argument against that I've heard ('overloading and named arguments do not play well together') doesn't seem valid, given the precedent in nim.
> 
> The only problems I can think of is if they affect name mangling, because then you would need to specify the names on each call. As long as they are optional syntax sugar, like in ketmar's POC implementation, they will probably work well.

they have to affect mangling for templates, though, if we want the ability to forward calls "as is" in templates. but i believe that this can be dealt with later -- i.e. in another PR.