[boost] Re: [Review] Named parameters library

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 
> defaulted).
> 
> 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 :-)

Thanks!
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net