Re: [boost] [Review] Named parameters library

From: Cromwell Enage (sponage_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-17 22:39:23

--- David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Cromwell Enage <sponage_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Since they may be used so often, should they be
> > defined in a single library-specific header,
> > e.g. <boost/graph/keywords.hpp>?  
> 
> Not neccessarily.  They should probably be decoupled
> and included as needed in each header.
> 
> > And would it help if each name had an appropriate
> > prefix, like "bgl_", to help avoid object
> > collisions?
> 
> Not much; I would nest the unnamed namespace inside
> boost (or a sub-namespace thereof).

Okay, I'll try to organize my code accordingly.

> > I find operator| to be the most logical operator
> > for assigning defaults, more so than operator& or
> > operator=.
> 
> I'm not positively sure what you're saying here. 
> Our design does use operator| for "providing"
> defaults.  They're never "assigned."  To do that,
> you would (tautologically) have to use operator=.

Bad wording on my part.

> > The resolution of the design issue concerning
> > parameter-dependent defaults bears more weight on
> > my vote than any of the other pluses or minuses
> > I've mentioned so far.  If it can be resolved
> > easily, then I vote yes.  Otherwise, not until it
> > is resolved.
> 
> I'm positive we can do something about it without
> too much trouble.

Very well.  You have my accept vote!

                              Cromwell Enage

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com