[boost] Re: [Review] Named parameters library

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-18 11:33:49

Daniel Wallin <dalwan01_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> However, Thorsten's prodding has made me wonder if we need || for the
>> lazy case at all.  It seems as though
>>     params.has(name) ? params[name] : something_else;
>> is superior in every way except brevity.  And there will be
>> substantial cases where it's briefer as well, because there's no need
>> to build a function object for something_else.
>> Am I missing something?
>
> Yes, I think you are. We want params[name] to be a compilation error if
> there is no such parameter supplied by the user and no default. I don't
> think the proposed construct can allow that.

Duh, you're right.

> IMO, a runtime error here is just not acceptable.

Okay.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com