On 2/2/23 00:54, Robert Allan Schwartz wrote:
> Would named parameters make this problem moot - i.e. defaults are only
> needed when you have positional parameters, not named parameters.

First, given the history of named parameters proposals in C++, I don't
think we're going to see them accepted any time soon, if ever. (And no,
using structs with designated initializers is not a replacement for
named parameters.)

Second, the proposed feature is not limited to just function arguments.