Re: [boost] Boost.MPI accepted

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-22 11:37:31

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> b) make it optional rather than obligatory
>
> I don't understand; It's already optional.
>
>> c) set the precedent for other libraries which might benefit
>> from a named parameter interface - without the need to
>>
>
> You don't need to "re-do the library."  It's a trivial
> transformation to add a named parameter interface to an existing
> function.  Just rename it slightly or put it in a detail namespace and
> dispatch to it from the named-parameter-enabled function that uses the
> implementation function's original name.  To clients of the original
> function, there's practically no detectable difference.

OK - I understood that the suggestion was to replace the public
interface with a parameter based one.  So, once it is
characterised as an optional add-on then it raises the
question as to why the same idea shouldn't be more widely
applied.  That is what I meant.

Robert Ramey