* David Brown:
> Far and away the best solution would be for C++ to support named
> parameters or named arguments:
>
> <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4172.htm>
>
> Then you could write:
>
> foo(1, 2, bar_p: true);
>
> You could also write
>
> foo(y: 2, bar_p: true, x: 1)
>
> and get the same call.
>
> It is always much better if you can put something in code rather than a
> comment.
True, but I don't think this is possible because function argument
names are explicitly *not* part of the API today (and are often
mangled in public header files, if they are included at all).
Something analogous to std::initializer_list, but for C99 designated
initializer syntax might be more acceptible. So in your example:
foo({.y = 2, .bar_p = true, .x = 1})
The advantage is that functions supporting this invocation style would
have to be marked explicitly in the sources, so there would not be an
accidental source code dependency on a non-portable aspect of system
header files.
