From: David A. Greene (greened_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-02 17:22:38
David Abrahams wrote:
> Okay. I guess there's no restriction on the relationships among those
Correct. They are independent dimensions in an engineering experiment
framework I'm developing.
> The bad thing about it is that it's more verbose for the ultimate user.
Yes, you are right.
> The ultimate user is more important than the designer of the client
> class template.
True. It's something I do want to revisit.
>>I'd think that the same arguments that motivated the named function
>>parameters library would motivate a named template parameters library.
> Unless the syntax turned out to be too unwieldy.
Right. Which is where the feedback part comes in. :)
> One last thing: I bet the named function parameters library and the
> named template parameters library could be made to share most of the
> same core machinery.
Possibly. Any development notes available (besides list archives,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk