Re: [boost] Re: Named Template Params

From: David A. Greene (greened_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-02 17:22:38

David Abrahams wrote:

> Okay.  I guess there's no restriction on the relationships among those
> integers?

Correct.  They are independent dimensions in an engineering experiment
framework I'm developing.

> The bad thing about it is that it's more verbose for the ultimate user.

Yes, you are right.

>  The ultimate user is more important than the designer of the client
> class template.

True.  It's something I do want to revisit.

>>I'd think that the same arguments that motivated the named function
>>parameters library would motivate a named template parameters library.
> 
> Unless the syntax turned out to be too unwieldy.

Right.  Which is where the feedback part comes in.  :)

> One last thing:  I bet the named function parameters library and the
> named template parameters library could be made to share most of the
> same core machinery.

Possibly.  Any development notes available (besides list archives,
that is)?

                              -Dave