Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-02-27 17:30:20

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, David Abrahams wrote:

abraha> It's all very well and good to emulate keyword arguments,
abraha> but shouldn't they be optional? After all, the type
abraha> described below is nearly just:
abraha> boost::iterator_adaptor<const int*, boost::reverse_iterator_policies>

Actually, that's the beauty of it. It is almost the above, but not quite.
Currently, even for something so close, you'd have to go and specify all
the other types, even though you just want to override one of them.

abraha> I realize the type below is more explicit, but it's also a
abraha> /lot/ more complex.

Yeah, the complexity has me a bit worried. I'm working on that...

 Jeremy Siek www:
 Ph.D. Candidate email: jsiek_at_[hidden]
 Univ. of Notre Dame work phone: (219) 631-3906

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at