On 9/17/20 8:58 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
> So they decided that a new `std.traits` template and a corresponding `__traits` option are needed which expand into the exact function signature of another function.

This, sounds great. I'd love to see the specifics for this.

Also, I am very much looking forward to named parameters! I hope call forwarding can be done in a simple a way as it's done now.

-Steve

On 9/17/2020 6:42 AM, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
> That being said, does the new feature imply any change in the *parameters* themselves?

No.

> I.e. are there changes in the way the function is defined,

No.

> not only in the way it is called?

It only affects calling syntax in providing an alternative way to call a function.

On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 20:13:23 UTC, Cym13 wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 13:45:16 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> What Mike thinks appears nowhere in my post :-)
>
> That's a bit sad. I understand that in your position it may be hard to express a personnal opinion but I think anyone should get the opportunity to do so. Would you like, in no official capacity whatsoever, to provide your personnal take on the matter?

I think you took that comment the wrong way :-) The announcement provides the rationale behind the decision Walter and Atila made. I just wanted to make it clear for anyone reading Jean-Louis's comment that I wasn't posting my opinion. For the record, I have no opinion on this DIP one way or another. Named arguments don't interest me at all.


>
> I think you should get to express your feelings as well :) But of course I would understand if you don't want to get involved in any particular issue.

Given that I work closely with DIP authors to revise their DIPs, and that sometimes that involves more than just proofreading, I don't think it's appropriate for me to publicly take a position on any of them. I don't want any author to feel I have an ulterior motive in any content revision suggestions I make, and I don't want to color my own judgement.

On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 12:58:06 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

> So they decided that a new `std.traits` template and a corresponding `__traits` option are needed which expand into the exact function signature of another function.

I have been trying to locate that specific discussion, without success so far. Help? This is of great interest to me, and I may throw in my $.02.

On Friday, 18 September 2020 at 13:34:30 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 12:58:06 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>
>> So they decided that a new `std.traits` template and a corresponding `__traits` option are needed which expand into the exact function signature of another function.
>
> I have been trying to locate that specific discussion, without success so far. Help? This is of great interest to me, and I may throw in my $.02.

It's from a phone call they had while they were discussing whether to approve or reject the DIP.

On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 12:58:06 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> DIP 1030, "Named Arguments", has been accepted.

Good. It has some weaknesses that Rikki's DIP would have avoided but it's also simpler. Good work, Walter!

> "Named arguments breaks this very important pattern:
>
> auto wrapper(alias origFun)(Parameters!origFun args)
> {
>   // special sauce
>   return origFun(args);
> }"

I'm not worried about this one, as AFAIK this does not really break, it just needs changes to work with the new feature.

On Friday, 18 September 2020 at 13:39:14 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

> It's from a phone call they had while they were discussing whether to approve or reject the DIP.

LOL no wonder I couldn't find it.

On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 12:59:05 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 12:58:06 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> DIP 1030, "Named Arguments", has been accepted.
>>
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1030.md

I am happy with that, too. So what is the estimated time frame for getting it in dmd?

On Monday, 21 September 2020 at 09:07:39 UTC, Martin Tschierschke wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 12:59:05 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 12:58:06 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>> DIP 1030, "Named Arguments", has been accepted.
>>>
>>
>> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1030.md
>
> I am happy with that, too. So what is the estimated time frame for getting it in dmd?

Good question :)

On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 12:58:06 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> DIP 1030, "Named Arguments", has been accepted.
>...

Mike, thanks for pulling this together. This question from the feedback thread is still unanswered.

> How does the compiler handle function lookup when there is an ambiguous match, but the ambiguous function is in a different module?

What would be the solution?