Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 10:28:13 +0200
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 at 10:10, Jan Schultke via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Mixing positional and named arguments is extremely common, so being unable to mix isn't great. There are ways to control whether an argument may be positional per parameter, or to split the parameter list into a positional and named section. There are tons of ways to go about it; personally, I think we need to decide on whether we want an explicit opt-in in the first place. If not, then speculating about a million possible ways to design the opt-in is just wasted effort.
EWG has rejected proposals like
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4172.htm
before due to the (lack of) opt-in question.
I don't see how anything has changed in that regard.
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Mixing positional and named arguments is extremely common, so being unable to mix isn't great. There are ways to control whether an argument may be positional per parameter, or to split the parameter list into a positional and named section. There are tons of ways to go about it; personally, I think we need to decide on whether we want an explicit opt-in in the first place. If not, then speculating about a million possible ways to design the opt-in is just wasted effort.
EWG has rejected proposals like
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4172.htm
before due to the (lack of) opt-in question.
I don't see how anything has changed in that regard.
Received on 2026-01-05 08:28:27