This is all, as the title suggests, good fun, but I wouldn't use it for any real code. Instantiating the parameter struct on a separate line adds only a small a

This is all, as the title suggests, good fun, but I wouldn't use it for any real code. Instantiating the parameter struct on a separate line adds only a small amount of extra boilerplate at the call site, in return for which it's a million times easier to read than any of these tricks. FooArgs fooArgs; fooArgs.y = 4; foo(fooArgs); // Didn't set .x so it has default value Three lines instead of one seems like a lot of overhead, but in practice you would only bother for a function that takes loads of arguments so the extra overhead is really much smaller. ---- Smaller points: Are the fields in FooArgs really initialised if they're not explicitly set? I can believe they are, after all it's brace initialisation. But IMHO that code isn't super obvious. I'd be more comfortable if they had default member initialisers, i.e., "int x = 0; int y = 0;" in FooArgs. In my version above, you really do need these (unless you remember to brace initialise). It took me a while to see why they bothered to have a string template parameter for TypedArg in the first usage. It prevents mixing up two arguments: if TypedArg didn't have that, then you could call foo(y=3, x=2) and it would compile but have the effect that the parameter x would be 3 and y would be 2.