[boost] Re: CLA/Config file library opinion

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-29 01:03:02

David Abrahams wrote:

>>     parameter<std::string>( "output" )
>>       << place_to( output_file_name )
>>       << default_value( "/tmp/abc" )
>>       << description( "output file name" )
> 
> While I don't find the interface proposed by Vladimir to be offensive,
> when you get a pile of function arguments of the same type together a
> named parameter interface *can* be a help.  I don't think I'd use
> operator<<, though.  If it's really about readability I'd tend to
> sacrifice some non-intrusive extensibility for a cleaner syntax:
> 
>      parameter<std::string>( "output" )
>        .place_to( output_file_name )
>        .default_value( "/tmp/abc" )
>        .description( "output file name" )
>        ;
> 
> But anyway, neither of these looks like a huge win over a function
> which simply takes 3 parameters.  Probably the complexity isn't
> justified.

And one important point: there are only three unnamed parameters. There's a
bunch of other things that can be configured, and they all use *named*
interface:

   desc.add_options()
       ("output", "file", "output file name").default_value("/tmp/abc")
       ;

- Volodya