[boost] Re: Named function params

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-05 17:39:45

Thomas Witt <witt_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

I wish.  Function template parameter types are not deducible from the
types of their defaults :(.

I wonder what it would take to get that changed?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com