> So one of your arguments is that it'll be difficult to maintain the C implementation of call_user_func, call_user_func_array and func_get_args?

No, I wasn't talking about C; or about language implementations at all. I was arguing that the phrase "just allowing named parameters" gives the impression that this feature would only affect function calls and definitions, when that's not the case. The most obvious repercussions are for `call_user_func`, `func_get_args`, etc. whose API would need to change. That induces changes to code that calls those functions, and code that calls that code, and so on.

Although PHP is famously un(der)specified, I'm talking about things like "`call_user_func(f, args...)` is equivalent to `f(args...)`"; anything relying on that property will break in the presence of named parameters (since they may be given in a different order), unless patched to take it into account.

> Whether I as a function author decide to re-order my arguments is a decision informed but not dictated by the existence of named arguments.

Sure, but that's just a first-order effect. It's a breaking change for higher order code (where functions and arguments are data, and calling is an operation on that data). That's why I gave an example of higher-order code.

As a silly analogy: if PHP extended its default numeric types to be complex numbers, that wouldn't affect existing values like `$age = 18` or `$length = 50`, since they're "informed, but not dictated by the existence of complex numbers"; it also wouldn't affect calculations using these values like `plus($age, $length)`. Yet it would have profound effects on numeric functions, which may have to be patched to take complex values into account: some functions, like `array_sum`, might work fine as-is; whilst others, like `array_slice`, might make no sense given the new situation (how might we take `3+5i` elements from an array?).

> All your "alternative" solutions read like horrible code to me compared to the now commonly accepted designs.

This sentence is a good example of what my "rant" is about. Why should improvements depend on what's "commonly accepted" (surely that's antithetical)? Could you elaborate any further on what makes those examples "read like horrible code"?

As a more detailed example we can look at `switch`: it's clearly a "now commonly accepted design", due to its prevalence in many "popular languages" like PHP/Javascript/etc. An alternative approach which solves the same problem is `match`, as used by ML. However, ML is not a popular language, and ML also introduced currying which you say "read[s] like horrible code". Does that make `switch` better than `match`?

This is an interesting example since a recent Python Enhancement Proposal is trying to add `match` to the language. This proposal seems credible, since the author list includes Guido van Rossum (the creator of Python): https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0622

Perhaps this is an outlier, since Python doesn't already have an equivalent like `switch`?

I wonder if the existence of that PEP changes your opinion of `switch` versus `match`? Maybe not; after all, Python doesn't have `switch` so maybe `match` is better than nothing. What if I showed you an equivalent proposal for adding it to Javascript (using the keyword `case`, like the non-popular language Haskell)? https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pattern-matching

At what point does a feature go from "horrible code" to "stealing each others' best ideas"?

What makes this even more interesting is that the very first sentence of PEP622 makes it clear that this is a case of stealing a good idea:

> This PEP proposes to add a pattern matching statement to Python, inspired by similar syntax found in Scala and many other languages.

To add a further wrinkle, PEP3103 was rejected for proposing essentially the same idea back in 2006: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3103/

Perhaps it was too soon to adopt ideas from Scala, since it had only been out for a couple of years by that point. However, `match` wasn't invented by Scala; it's been around in multiple languages, some more popular than others, dating back to 1973!

As further evidence of this, there was another rejected PEP for the same basic idea, from way back in 2001: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0275

I wonder whether your line of reasoning would come out in in favour of PEP622 today, whether it would have come out in favour of PEP275 twenty years ago, and whether it will argue in favour of `match` twenty years from now?