[boost] Re: [Review] Named parameters library

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-15 09:32:26

Noah Stein <noah <at> acm.org> writes:

> > On Behalf Of Thorsten Ottosen

> > | What about the situation where you need to specify the parameters at
> > | construction, e.g. the RAII paradigm?
> > 
> > I don't think I understand what you're saying.
> > 
> 

> I agree that your point is well made in the example given.  But that's only
> one example.  There are many others.  My resulting question is: what's your
> solution when the parameter list can't be reduced?  Frequently, I like to
> avoid two-step construction and initialization.  I don't want every member
> function to check to see if the object is truly available or uninitialized.

Well, you could construct a valid object with suitable default values.
Such an object is valid by definition. 

> There are times that I can't avoid long parameter lists in my constructors,
> especially when dealing with classes that sit just on top of hardware.  The
> named parameters library looks like it could facilitate construction by
> enhancing readability and default value handling.

Did this library support constructors anyway?

Given the answer to that question is yes, I'm not sure why you can't do
step-wise constrction.

-Thorsten