September 17, 2020
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
September 17, 2020
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.
September 18, 2020
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.

September 18, 2020
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.
September 18, 2020
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.
September 18, 2020
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.
September 18, 2020
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.
September 21, 2020
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?
September 21, 2020
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 :)
September 23, 2020
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?
1 2 3