# Pre-RFC: Named arguments **URL:** \ **Category:** language design\ **Created:** [April 2, 2022, 9:27pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-named-arguments/16413 "2022-04-02T21:27:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 123
**Author:** ![khionu](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/internals.rust-lang.org/khionu/32/8761_2.png) [@khionu](https://internals.rust-lang.org/u/khionu)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2022, 12:18am UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-named-arguments/16413/123 "2022-07-10T00:18:23Z")
There's been several reports from both sides of the issues here. I'd like to encourage everyone to take a few steps back. For @Ichoran and @anon32976453 in particular, please try to focus on how this RFC pertains to Rust. RFCs can be _supported_ by existing art, but it's not productive in the pre-RFC phase to argue against the proposal unless there is hard, concrete, and unavoidable reasons that the RFC shouldn't be considered. It's the point of the RFC phase for review for acceptance. Pre-RFCs should be focused on the drafting, making sure the RFC _as a proposal_ is well written, even if you disagree with the proposal. --- _[View the full topic](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-named-arguments/16413)._