https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21808
--- Comment #4 from Bolpat <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Berni44 from comment #2) > Changing this to "enhancement", because normal use of positional parameters > has a completely different meaning - it gives the position of an argument in > the function call and has nothing to do with the order of the elements of a > single argument. > > Anyway, I see the need for the possibility to change the order; and > positional arguments don't make any sense inside of a compound specifier. > Therefore I think, it is OK to (ab)use them like suggested here. But then > it's not a bug, but an enhancement. For tuples' %( %) expansion format, reordering works: import std.typecons, std.stdio; writefln("%( %2$s (%1$s) %)", tuple(1, "one")); // prints: one (1) --
