Re: [boost] Named function params

From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-05 16:59:22

Dave

David Abrahams wrote:

> 
> I'm pretty proud of myself (;->)

Rightfully so.

> but I'm not too satisfied with how
> much code is required for someone wanting to write a new function
> accepting keyword arguments, and further I'm not sure how to design a
> good interface for automatically generating the boilerplate with the
> preprocessor.  Consider that there may be initial non-keyword args,
> which might themselves be templated or not.
> 
> I thought I'd open it up for suggestions.  Thoughts, anyone?
> 

Can't the number of overloads needed be reduced by using default 
arguments of type nil? This should work as long as the positional 
arguments aren't non-const references.

Thomas