Incorporating things brought by Ryan Coy in the discussion thread.

drafts/FS-1095-requirenamedargumentattribute.md

@@ -7,10 +7,10 @@ The design suggestion [Add an attribute enforcing the use of named argument at c
 This RFC covers the detailed proposal for this suggestion.
 
 - [x] Approved in principle
-- [ ] [Suggestion](https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/414)
-- [ ] [Implementation](https://github.com/dotnet/fsharp/pull/FILL-ME-IN)
+- [x] [Suggestion](https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/414)
+- [x] [Implementation](https://github.com/dotnet/fsharp/pull/11368)
 - [ ] Design Review Meeting(s) with @dsyme and others invitees
-- [Discussion](https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-design/discussions/538)
+- [x] [Discussion](https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-design/discussions/538)
 
 # Summary
 
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ Error message:
 
 # Alternatives
 
-Using record types.
+Using record types, using single case/single field discriminated union, using units of measure. More details on those in [the discussion thread](https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-design/discussions/538).
 
 # Compatibility
 
@@ -83,4 +83,6 @@ Does the compiler errors if the attribute is used on a function? or a warning? o
 
 What happens when the attribute is put on a virtual method but not on an overriden one?
 
-What happens when the attribute is put on a method defined in an interface but not on the implementation?
+What happens when the attribute is put on a method defined in an interface but not on the implementation?
+
+Should the feature support applying the attribute to only a subset of arguments, on argument by argument basis as well? How does it play out with restriction about named arguments coming last in the call site?