The argument was made that unnamed required parameters helps us distinguish required from optional arguments. However, given that significants part of the toolkit already uses required named parameters and given our ambition to keep the core upgradeable, we are never going to rely on a rule that named parameters are optional, no matter what decision comes out of this discussion.
Some programmers favor verbosity and readability over less typing and adherance with traditional Tcl programming style. It might be that we should avoid a simplistic decision here and instead leave the decision to the programmers on a case-by-case basis. I don't see a need to always use named parameters or always not use named parameters and in many cases we will be dealing with a mixture of both.
