From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-03 18:21:49
"Hurd, Matthew" <hurdm_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I guess my first thought is: "Whaa??? What does any of the above have
>> to do with a named parameters library?"
> Pretty much nothing. I just like the named_params style of interface
> and wanted to adopt the approach.
> I want to build a mechanism where it is easy to build an interface to a
> function / functor than can have a policy that allows it to be a normal
> function or something else such as a function in worker pool or a remote
> My desire is to make it easy to represent a function and keep this
> orthogonal to whether it remote, pooled or local via a policy.
You're describing boost::function<...> now.
> For some of the mechanisms I actually would like names for the
> parameters to help fulfil a protocol requirement, thus the desire for
> introspection on the names and a look into your neat library.
So put a named-param front end on a boost::function (?)
>> I can begin to vaguely see a reason to slap a named parameters
>> interface on top of the whole thing, but it seems like you could do
>> that as an afterthought. Am I missing something? I must be.
> One extra note for you. There was a couple of typos in the doc. From
> memory, the order of the arity and the keywords in the macro are
> transposed in the documentation. Also the docs still refer to
> params[name | default] rather than p[name|default].
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk