Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-13 14:26:45

David Abrahams wrote:
> This approach is superior to bgl_named_params in part because it
> avoids undue coupling and dependency in a library design. That
> coupling is discussed in depth in this excerpt from C++ Template
> Metaprogramming (

This coupling could be avoided by using an overloaded operator to
combine the arguments, for example:

     f(slew(.799) | name("z"));

An advantage of this method is that it avoids the need for the
forwarding functions.

>>However, the amount of work needed to code parameters for this is
>>quite large.
> Really? Did you compare how much work it would be to use
> BOOST_NAMED_PARAMS_FUN vs. what you're suggesting below?

Unless I'm mistaken, BOOST_NAMED_PARAMS_FUN can't be used for member
functions. It also doesn't allow exception specifications for free
functions, although I'm not sure if that's much of a loss.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at