On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 20:32:02 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
Declaring the named arguments variadically will be done by
adding `...` after a struct argument:
struct Options{int x; int y=1; int z=2;}
auto fun(Options options ...)
We'll need a syntax for specifying the arguments - but that's
more of a matter of taste than an actual technical problem, and
it's going to be bikeshedded over and over, so for the purpose
of describing my idea let's pick a Ruby-style `:`(because `=`
will break the rule of
if-it-compiles-as-C-it-should-work-like-C):
fun(x: 4, z: 3);
I've promised you to solve ambiguity, right?
--snip--
I'm not sure, but I think the problem Walter has lies with
_detecting_ ambiguity in the first place, because that would make
overload resolution more complicated. I personally don't think
it's that big a problem, because selecting the candidates could
be a step before actual (= as it is now) overload resolution.
