Re: [boost] [Boost.Parameter] advice needed for Boost.svg_plot

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-27 12:27:28

>-----Original Message-----
>From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
>[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Scott McMurray
>Sent: 27 June 2007 14:21
>To: boost_at_[hidden]
>Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.Parameter] advice needed for Boost.svg_plot
>
>On 27/06/07, Jake Voytko <jakevoytko_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Here's my case for why the benefits are compelling for 
>plot_range(), 

<snip>

>It seems like with that much stuff for each point, it might be useful
>to have a struct for representing a point style.  It seems plausible
>to want to pass that kind of thing around,

> and nobody will want to
>forward all those options manually, named parameters or not.

This seems an important point - named parameters don't fully solve the problem.

>That way you get the non-Boost.Parameter way of faking named 
>parameters free:
>plot_range( my_plot, data.begin(), data.end(),
>    point_style().set_shape(circle)
>                 .set_fill(blue)
>                 .set_outline(black) );
>And you get the defaults for everything unspecified.  You also might
>be able to get rid of most of the overloads and instead have functions
>that return point_style objects, or have some implicit constructors
>for the simple cases (like from a colour, to do the same thing as the
>overload you use in the examples).

Sounds well worth exploring.  

Paul

---
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone] & SMS, Mobile [phone] & SMS
pbristow_at_[hidden]