Pre-RFC: Named arguments

[Aloso]

@Ryan1729

I suppose, given one wants to encourage people to be considerate when exposing named arguments, the friction associated with exposing macros to other crates could be considered a feature.

I don't see how adding friction for the users of the API is desirable.

@scottmcm

That RFC would, for example, address the "and also can't handle non-optional arguments" objection in #12 above.

That is actually what I had in mind when I wrote that comment. However, I believe ekuber's RFC was never submitted (or finished?), which is unfortunate, because it's such a useful feature.