This issue is related to issue dart-lang/sdk#6496, but asks for less.

This comment was originally written by @seaneagan

Is this asking for:

• 2 separate optional parameters within the same declaration, one named, one positional
• allowing a single optional parameter to be both named and positional

The former could be solved by non-overlapping [] and {}. If overlapping [] and {} are allowed, then would have to decide whether to allow both {[ and [{ as well as }] and ]].

It is asking for non-overlapping [] and {}.
Examples:
new List([length = 0], {fill: null});
Stream.subscribe([onData], {onError, onDone})
new Date(year, [month, ...., milliseconds], {isUtc: false})

Added this to the Later milestone.
Added Accepted label.

This comment was originally written by @seaneagan

Sounds perfect! The only other thing I would change (also mentioned in issue dart-lang/sdk#6496) is to use = instead of : for named positional default values:

new List([length = 0], {fill = null});

The = to default positional optionals doesn't mimic call site syntax, so why does the named positional default syntax try to? I think it's more importatnt to be consistent between how to default optional parameters regardless of whether they are named or positional.

This comment was originally written by @rbishop-bah

Related: Issue dart-lang/sdk#17101

Removed this from the Later milestone.
Added Oldschool-Milestone-Later label.

Removed Oldschool-Milestone-Later label.

Issue dart-lang/sdk#17101 has been merged into this issue.

Marked this as blocking dart-lang/sdk#21406.

Since 2.0 is thinking of some drastic changes is there any way the more extreme do like C#, Python, of dart-lang/sdk#6496 can be revisited.

@gbracha would a DEP be required for this?

@donny-dont if this issue is fixed then we will be able to do:

greet([String salutation = 'Hello'], {String who}) {
  print('$salutation $who!');
}

Then if there is really a need to allow parameters to be both named and positional, we could further allow something like this syntax:

greet({[String salutation = 'Hello', String who]}) {
  print('$salutation $who!');
}

But personally, I think that creates unnecessarily bloated API surface.

Any guesses when this might get implemented?

I would like to have the ability to have a parameter be either positional or named, for a common usage case in Flutter -- the children/child of a widget (note that this case also applies to any place where you are building tree-structured values).

Consider the following Flutter widget tree:

new Center(child:
   new Column(children: [
      new Text("Hello, World!"),
      new Icon(Icons.star, color: Colors.green)
   ])
)

Once "new" is optional, this starts looking like a reasonable replacement for HTML, as soon as we can treat child or children arguments as positional, like this:

Center(
   Column([
      Text("Hello, World!"),
      Icon(Icons.star, color: Colors.green)
   ])
)

We kinda already have this in that Text doesn't specify the 'Hello, World!' string as a child, even though it kinda is. Same thing for Icon.

It would be nice (albeit not required) if the positional argument did not have to be the first argument so you could specify the named arguments first before following them with the children specified as a positional argument.

I would love to see this, together with making child en children positional in Flutter 🙏

In maintaining the protobuf library we have functions that take positional optional arguments, making it hard to add further optional arguments.
Refactoring the existing functions to take only named arguments is probably the 'right thing to do(tm)' but that is a breaking change and thus very costly.

For example GeneratedMessage.fromBuffer currently has the signature

void mergeFromBuffer(List<int> input,
      [ExtensionRegistry extensionRegistry = ExtensionRegistry.EMPTY]);

If we want to add more options to the parsing (for example bool ignoreUnknownFields) it would be nice to add as a named optional, but that is currently not possible.

Something new? This sounds like a useful feature...

Is such a thing allowed now?

Future<Database> connect({String dbName, [String dbUserName, String dbPassword]}) {}

connect(dbName:"sample");
connect(dbName:"sample", dbUserName:"username", dbPassword:"password");

That wasn't the problem. The problem was using them as separate, and not nested, like this:

Future<Database> connect({String dbName}, [String dbUserName, String dbPassword]) 

I too ran today into this while working on a new API and I actually don't understand this restriction. If it's possible to mix named and positional parameter , why can't that positional not being optional?

I agree. Why we cant have both: positional and named optional parameters at the same time?

I, sadly, don't think "named arguments anywhere" has any effect on the viability of this issue.
Named arguments anywhere is a simple reshuffling of arguments at the call site, it does not affect the declaration of functions. Allowing both named and optional positional arguments on the same function would affect function declarations and the low-level function call protocol.

Any knowledge on how someone can assist on that? I just have no idea on if this could be developed from outsiders and where to look for potential solutions/problems.

We definitely love getting help from external contributors. :)

But this is a particularly tricky issue because it affects the language's calling convention. That requires work in all of our implementations: VM, native compiler, development web compiler, and optimized web compiler. Any of those could potentially have negative performance implications that might make the feature untenable.

So to make progress on this, we really have to talk to all of the implementation teams and see how they think they would support it and what the performance costs might be before we could make any decisions.

I think it's worth noting that there's some nice synergy between this issue and the new Dart 2.17 features.

Since we now have "named arguments anywhere", we could eventually change child and children into positional arguments:

Container(
  color: Colors.green,
  Column(
    mainAxisSize: MainAxisSize.min,
    [
      Text('Elegant as heck'),
    ],
  ),
)

Combining optional positional & named arguments can also be helpful when using super initializers:

class CustomBox extends StatelessWidget {
  final int? height;
  const CustomBox([this.height, Key? key]) : super(key: key); // the old way to do it

  const CustomBox([this.height, super.key]);   // throws an error
  const CustomBox([this.height], {super.key}); // it would be great if this worked!
  ...
}

It's unfortunate to hear that this issue affects Dart's calling convention. Guess I'll just keep my fingers crossed that it'll work out!

@lrhn There seems to be an infinite recursion in that issue link list :P

What's the issue with tracking this?

@lrhn, did you intend to close some other issue which is subsumed by this one?

Whoops, yes. I thought I was looking at an SDK-repo issue. I followed a link with dart-lang/sdk/ in it to get there.
I just hadn't noticed the issue had been moved here, and the old link was forwarding, so it's all the same issue.

Is there any chance of this coming in Dart 3? It would seem like an ideal time for it, considering that this has been opened for 11 years!

Is there any chance of this coming in Dart 3? It would seem like an ideal time for it, considering that this has been opened for 11 years!

I'm pretty sure it won't...

Sorry, no, this won't make it into Dart 3. I would like to fix it at some point, but it's one of those issues that's annoying but not troublesome enough to reach the top of the priority list.

Sad to hear that, but thanks for letting us know. Just looking forward to Dart 3 now :)

I'm currently overhauling the APIs of get_it and get_it_mixin. It really would make APIs much better if we at least had the first parameter an optional positional that can have a default value and get mixed with named ones that follow

@escamoteur, it would be interesting to see the concrete example, can you show it using a small snippet of code?

One of the sources of complexity in this feature is the need to support a different calling convention (in particular, such that invocations of first class functions using the type dynamic or Function can work, or even statically checked invocations on a supertype). This would potentially require a substantial amount of work in several different backends.

If we're satisfied with a static mechanism then we do have a lightweight proposal here: #831, 'optionally named parameters'.

The idea is that some parameters can be named, but they are marked as 'optionally named', and they can then be passed as positional parameters. At each call site, a compile-time transformation will check the actual argument list, cut off any 'extra' positional parameters (so if the function declares 1 positional parameter, but we're passing 3, we have 2 extras), and re-adding those extra parameters with a name (so foo(1, 2, 3, z: 4) becomes foo(1, x: 2, y: 3, z: 4)). The declaration specifies which named parameters are subject to this transformation, and in which order.

The main limitation is that (foo as dynamic)(1, 2, 3, z: 4) will fail because it will be called exactly as written (the compile-time transformation won't change any dynamic calls), and foo doesn't actually accept 3 positional parameters (also, x or y could be required).

How would that work for you?

Just a very simple example

  T get<T extends Object>({
    dynamic param,
    String? instanceName,
    Type? type,
  });

in 99% of the case, people don't pass any of these parameters with the exception, of the registered Type in GetIt is a factory. Then being able to pass a parameter is quite common and it would be nice to be about to write

GetIt.I<Myfactory>(valueTopassToTheFactory);
instead of 
GetIt.I<Myfactory>(param: valueTopassToTheFactory);

not sure if that would be possible with the linked proposal.

Thanks for the example, @escamoteur!

With a rough idea about the possible rules of a proposal according to this issue ('allow both positional and optional named parameters'), the example declaration might be expressed as follows:

T get<T extends Object>(
  [dynamic paramPositional], {
  dynamic param,
  String? instanceName,
  Type? type,
}) {
  param ??= paramPositional;
  ... // Remaining implementation unchanged.
}

void main() {
  var v = valueTopassToTheFactory;
  get<MyFactory>(v); // OK.
  get<MyFactory>(param: v); // OK.
  get<MyFactory>(v, param: v); // Bug: Pass both parameters, no error.
}

Pro: This is a mechanism that will work for statically checked invocations as well as invocations where the function has static type dynamic or Function, which is a very nice consistency property.

Con: There is no direct support for making a choice ("should we pass this argument by name or by position?"), which means that we have to declare two distinct parameters and use something like a default value of null and the ??= construct in order to use the parameter that actually received a useful value and ignore the other parameter. There is no support (in the language) for getting a diagnostic message if both parameters receive a non-trivial value by mistake.

With the 'optionally named parameter' proposal, we'd do as follows:

T get<T extends Object>({
  dynamic param?,
  String? instanceName,
  Type? type,
}) {
  // ... // Remaining implementation unchanged.
}

void main() {
  var v = valueTopassToTheFactory;
  get<MyFactory>(v); // OK.
  get<MyFactory>(param: v); // OK.
  get<MyFactory>(v, param: v); // Compile-time error.

  (get as dynamic)<MyFactory>(param: v); // OK.
  (get as dynamic)<MyFactory>(v); // Throws at run time.
}

Pro, at least for this example: We can express the property that it is the same parameter which is passed by name or positionally, and there is no danger that we're going to pass both of them by accident.

Con: This mechanism is compile-time-only, which means that the ability to pass a named parameter positionally does not work for dynamic invocations. However, it does work to pass it as a named parameter.

If I'm honest, I'm not sure I like #831 ('optionally named parameter') to resolve this ('allow both positional and optional named parameters'). It in itself seems like an overcomplication and a fairly niche use-case feature - are there other languages that have this feature? As a resolution to this, it kind of feels like a low quality workaround.

Just as another example for this issue, adding named arguments to a method with existing unnamed positional arguments, without causing a breaking change.

C# has the "optionally named parameters" feature, in that they allow you to specify arguments either by position or by name. They're named arguments, not named parameters. C# does not have named (only) parameters.

I would prefer removing optional positional parameters as it greatly simplifies things. #2232

@JaffaKetchup, This feature is fairly often used in Python. Probably, the one who raised this request, use it too. The main reason for having both at the same time is, that the options you often use (but not always), you don't want to name. However, the rarely used options should be named for maintainability, but they often do not even have a position.

E.g. Using open you usually read a text file, so using open("myfile") is sufficient. However if you happen to write one, you use the positional parameter mode: open("myfile", "w"). But there are a bunch of further options, for which you must use names. Of course, this could be written, too: open("myfile", mode="w"). Note, that Python have 3 types of parameters all of which can be optional: positional only, named/keyword only, and those which can be used in position or with name (this latter is the default).

This can be a really strong feature if you get used to it.