Re: [boost] Boost.MPI accepted

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-22 19:22:06

"Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.  

Yes it was.

> 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.  

Yes, a reasonable question, to be sure.
-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com