[boost] Re: [Review] Named parameters library

From: Joel (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-22 00:16:16

Joel de Guzman wrote:

Re: defaults handling:

> Here's another possibility: declare the defaults in the
> foo_keywords class:
> 
> struct foo_keywords
>   : boost::keywords<
>         name_t
>       , value_t
>     >
> {
>     static string default_(name_t) { return "duh"; }
>     static int default_(value_t) { return 123; }
> };
> 
> With this approach, all default extraction is lazy.
> 
> Admitedly, it's more verbose. However, like in straight c++,
> the defaults are part of the interface, not the implementation.
> IMO, foo_impl's body is not a good place to place the defaults.
> I imagine that in many (all?) cases, you'd want the implementation
> to be hidden. Yet, doing so will also hide the defaults.
> With this approach, the defaults can be placed in header files
> as part of the interface.

Hi,

Hmmm. I wonder why I got no response. Am I not making sense?
I think this solution is doable. You still get a compiler error
when a default is not available when unsupplied by the caller
and IMO, it is superior because the default handling does not
clutter the function implementation.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net