I’ve tackled this before (and so have a lot of other much smarter people), and no, using keywords to specify positional arguments out of order really relies on a function having 1 method for each unique set of names. Simple example:
foo(a::Int, b::Float64) = a+b
foo(b::Float64, a::Int) = b-a
@keywordedpositional foo(b=1.5, a=2) # ambiguity error
KeywordCalls.jl doesn’t do an error in such a case, it uses the position of the keywords, which defeats the purpose of using keywords to shuffle positional arguments and adds an undesired layer of complexity to dispatch (f(::Int, ::Int) type signature not enough, needs additional keywords to determine which 1 of 2 methods).
# Adapting front page example to have >1 method for arguments (a,b)
using KeywordCalls
f(nt::NamedTuple{(:b, :a)}) = println("Calling f(b = ", nt.b,",a = ", nt.a, ")")
f(nt::NamedTuple{(:a, :b)}) = println("Calling f(a = ", nt.a,",b = ", nt.b, ")")
@kwcall f(b,a) # writing f(a, b) makes no difference here
#^ but if only 1 method exists, the order should match that method
f(a=1,b=2) # Calling f(a = 1,b = 2)
f(b=2,a=1) # Calling f(b = 2,a = 1)