There are a lot of syntactic sugar improvements the committee could make that they simply refuse to. Named parameters and function pointer syntax are compile-time fixes that would have zero runtime costs, yet it's 2024 and we've hardly budged from ANSI C.
Exactly. I actually think default parameters are hazardous without named-parameter support. When they added one, IMO they should have added the other as well, so that you can specify exactly which non-default parameters you're passing.
I think this is more an appeasement of the C++ committee because they don't like the order of evaluation to be ambiguous when constructors with side effects come into play. Witness how they completely gimped the primary utility of designated initializers with the requirement to have the fields in order.
