4 ms·

The feature is controversial enough that it's basically a wontfix.

• _flux 2y ago
  Is it really, though? I didn't read all the comments, but the ones I read, very few were opposing the concept as such: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-named-arguments/16413/18 https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-named-arguments/16... However, many were opposing overloading the same pre-rfc was suggesting.
  • steveklabnik 2y ago
    https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/323 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/323 is the oldest currently open tracking issue, as you can see it has 397 comments. And that thread you linked has 171. Basically, tons of people that feel basically every possible way. I also feel at this point it's basically a wontfix, but that's more because it's both controversial and huge, and arguably not as high of a priority as other things even if it weren't those two things. The reason it gets huge is that you really want to consider all three of {optional, named, variadric} at roughly the same time. I do think that people are generally more supportive of variadric than optional/named.
    • PoignardAzur 2y ago
      Variadic*
      • steveklabnik 2y ago
        Thanks!
  • darby_nine 2y ago
    I'm guessing that general support doesn't translate to support for a specific syntax with changes to the calling convention. I wouldn't put money on this coming together any time soon.