Re: [boost] [parameter] std proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [parameter] std proposal
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-26 14:29:15

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:59 AM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> At Wed, 26 May 2010 17:59:14 +0400,
> Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > Is there a C++ standard proposal for named parameter addition?
>> >
>> > I am looking for an "N-paper" for named parameters similar to N2081
>> > for concepts, or N1962 for contracts.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> named parameters were rejected years ago.
>
> They were raised and dropped, but that doesn't mean they can't come back.

Yes, from "Design and Evolution of C++" Section 6.5.1:
<< Roland Hartinger's proposal for keyword arguments, that is, for a
mechanism for specifying arguments by name in a call, was close to
technically perfect. The reason the proposal was withdrawn rather than
accepted is therefore particularly interesting... >>

Does anyone have a reference to the actual proposal from Roland
Hartinger? (I could not find it on the Internet...)

BTW, the reason I am asking is because I would like to compare notes
on named parameters between the dropped C++ proposal, Boost.Parameter,
and Boost.Contract syntactical wrappers around Boost.Parameter. For
example, from reading "Design and Evolution of C++" section 6.5.1, the
dropped C++ proposal did not include type requirements which are
instead supported by Boost.Parameter (and therefore by
Boost.Contract). I am curious about any other difference.

Thanks a lot.

-- 
Lorenzo