Is this supposed to work?

[dabrahams]

fn f(Int: x, Int: y) -> Int { return x; }
fn main() -> Int { return f(.y = 3, .x = 0); }

I get a "missing field y" compilation error.

[josh11b]

In the proposal I wrote (not accepted), that was not legal since the definition of f did not specify any named parameters. If you changed it to:

fn f(.x = Int: x, .y = Int: y) -> Int { return x; }
fn main() -> Int { return f(.y = 3, .x = 0); }

Then I would expect to get an error that the arguments are passed in a different order than the parameters. That is something I would like to relax, but there are concerns about defining the order of evaluation and destruction when there are two possible orders to choose from.

[dabrahams]

Ah, thanks, that one does in fact work. Although, it does not report an error.

[tkoeppe]

(Could you kindly edit the issue titile to be somewhat meaningful when read on its own, e.g. in the issues summary list?)

[jsiek]

I've opened issue #481 to update the executable semantics to implement the ordering restriction Josh mentioned above.

[github-actions]

We triage inactive PRs and issues in order to make it easier to find active work. If this issue should remain active or becomes active again, please comment or remove the inactive label. The long term label can also be added for issues which are expected to take time.
This issue is labeled inactive because the last activity was over 90 days ago.

[zygoloid]

The executable semantics side of this was addressed in #481. There's also a specification question here, which is covered by #505 and in particular its question "Are named parameters positional?".

Closing this in favor of those two other issues.