I think that named variables are confusing and could break existing code the point is that I want to use the existing  defaults in arbitrary location without specifying the value. I am posting here to see if there is interest in proposing it as a language feature.

On Nov 11, 2019 10:03 PM, "Andrew Tomazos" <andrewtomazos@gmail.com> wrote:

I actually think it would be better to have named parameters.  That way:

auto  fooval = foo(13, default,  default, &foobazval);

is instead:

auto  fooval = foo(bar: 13, foobaz: &foobazval);

which I think reads a lot better.  I suspect you only want this default feature so that you can default parameters in the middle of the list without defaulting those at the end.

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:00 AM Vishal Oza via Std-Discussion <std-discussion@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
I just wanted to know if the following idea is a bad idea. Should we enable using the default keyword to function input value parameter if we only care about one parameter that have default parameters both before and after the parameter we care about?
For example:

int foo(int bar = 3, int baz = 7, int* foobar = nullptr, int* foobaz = nullptr) { ... }
int foobazval = 78;
auto  fooval = foo(13, default,  default, &foobazval); // =  foo(13, 7,  nullptr, &foobazval)

The exceptions are references where there should never be a default value and possibly type with no default this is only a possibly because the type could be the same value as the type if the type was default constructed.
Std-Discussion mailing list