Boost logo

Boost :

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

Noah Stein <noah <at>> 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.


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