[boost] Re: Re: Re: Policy-based smart pointers revisisted (was: Re:Preliminarysubmission: command line & config file library)

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-19 18:10:15

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:uk7h1j7j9.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> "Edward Diener" <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote...
> >> "Edward Diener" <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> >> > Nonetheless I do favor a compiler change such as allowing the
"default"
> >> > keyword to be used instead as Mr. Terekhov suggested in that same
thread.
> >> > That would be much cleaner and should be easy for any compiler to
handle.
> >> > This is one case where I would like to see the language updated with
such an
> >> > easy, transparent solution to the problem. Of course if others don't
see it
> >> > as much of a problem, they wouldn't be in favor of the solution since
it
> >> > involves the dreaded "C++ language change"
> >>
> >> Oh, it's a problem alright, but I'm still not very convinced of that
> >> solution.  The problem with interfaces that have lots of positional
> >> parameters is that you forget what the different positions mean.  To
> >> solve that problem, you need either named parameters or a
> >> position-independent interface.
> >
> > Since the C++ language already has embraced positional parameters as
> > its normal means of passing information to functions, classes, or
> > templates, it is a little disingenuous to complain about them.
>
> Do you know the meaning of "disingenuous"?  Did you really mean to
> accuse me of intellectual dishonesty?

Not at all. My dictionary doesn't define "disingenuous" as "intellectual
dishonesty" but even by its definition it was a very poor choice in the
expression above and I shouldn't have used it along with the "complain"
rhetoric. Just got carried away.

What I meant to say was that arguing against positional default parameters
goes against the grain of the language IMHO.