[boost] Re: [Review] Named parameters library

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-17 10:03:38

"David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:cndvjs$sm8$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
| Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
| > [...]
| > Currently it is really a pain in the *** to have an object with many
default
| > arguments. Your library makes that managable; but I argue
| > functions with many arguments should be refactored since their level of
| > abstraction is getting too low; allowing many default arguments
| > juat makes the situation worse.
|
| You keep saying that, but I wonder if you actually have to write any
| real-world code, or if perhaps you are simply an academic?

A have experience with both kinds of code (how you define the difference, I
don't know) and have worked with multiple languages that
allows default arguments.

| I have
| many instances of functions with numerous arguments for which I offer
| no apology and would resist any attempt by you or anyone else to
| refactor into functions with fewer arguments.

but you would rather refactor into using named parameters?

| There is such a thing as
| too much abstraction.

perhaps. If you mean having private data and public function in classes
without an invariant, I agree.

| Next you will go around insisting that everyone
| uses your int wrapper which automatically detects overflow.

I'm not insisting that you must refactor you N parameter function; I'm merely
saying that
chances are that it can be done and that it can improve the overall quality of
your code.

If you refuse to refactor your code, then so be it.

-Thorsten