{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiey3vhihjrd7ulajghged5do4odgfs2mkup5cii2a2d2snarlef5a",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:ivbknywyskln22er3nkssdhl/app.bsky.feed.post/3mfoghjnprvc2"
  },
  "path": "/t/pre-rfc-function-parameter-defaults/24011#post_5",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-25T08:50:25.000Z",
  "site": "https://internals.rust-lang.org",
  "tags": [
    "elsewhere"
  ],
  "textContent": "jplatte:\n\n> I would like to propose two independent RFCs for function parameter defaults, and named function parameters.\n\nTo quote what I said last week elsewhere,\n\n> I continue to think that we should make using structs for this more ergonomic before considering named function argument proposals. Notably, that avoids all the questions like \"and what do the fn traits look like?\", plus are more convenient anyway for anyone wanting to wrap such a function, because _forwarding_ \"large groups of things\" is annoying even with named parameters.\n\n* * *\n\nThere have been loads of conversations like this before. I suggest you write the rationale and such first, not the \"here's the solution I propose\".",
  "title": "Pre-RFC: Function parameter defaults"
}