From: Joel (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-22 20:07:56
Doug Gregor wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2004, at 12:16 AM, Joel wrote:
Re: alternative defaults approach.
> But on the other hand, with this method you don't have the ability to
> make the defaults depend on the other parameters passed to the function.
> In the BGL, we have lots of dependencies between parameters where we'll
> build, e.g., a property map based on the vertex index parameter (which
> may be defaulted) and the value type of a weight map (which may be
> This approach also forces me to name the result type, which can be
> rather annoying.
I see. I understand now (yours and Daniels replies). I take it that
we agree that a declarative interface for defaults handling is
better than an imperative interface, but that we are limited by
the language. Seems like a challenge to me :-)
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk