[kevincox]

You can, but it is a mouthful. Especially if you want optional arguments.

    foo::some_func(foo::SomeFuncArgs{
      a: 8,
      b: Some(false),
      ..Default::default()
    })

Personally I would be really happy if `..` could default to `..Default::default()` which would make this a lot cleaner. But even then needing to name a type for the argument struct is noisy. Language-integrated keyword arguments would make this a lot cleaner:

    foo::some_func(
        a=8,
        b=Some(false))

[cyber_kinetist]

By the way, C++20 designated initializers works like a charm for this.

  foo::some_func({
    .a = 8, 
    .b = false
  });

(I view this and std::span as the only two usable features in C++20, and pretty much everything else can go to the dustbin or the drawing board.)

[estebank]

I'm waiting to getting some spare time to propose (not quite but very close) that in an RFC. A lot of conversation about it from a while back is available at https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-pre-rfc-syntactic-suga...

[cercatrova]

Indeed, it's basically the same as in JS/TS where you just pass an object of key/values rather than have named arguments.

[kevincox]

Yes, but it is a lot cleaner there because you don't need to specify the name of the type and you don't need to do anything special for optional arguments.

I wouldn't mind if it worked this way "under the hood" but syntax sugar for passing that last argument as keyword arguments would be a fantastic quality of life improvement.