[parameter] std proposal
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. Thank you. -- Sent from my mobile device Lorenzo
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dmitry Goncharov" <dgoncharov@unison.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [boost] [parameter] std proposal
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.
have you a reference? Vicente
vicente.botet wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dmitry Goncharov" <dgoncharov@unison.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [boost] [parameter] std proposal
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.
have you a reference? Vicente
See "The design and evolution of c++" by Bjarne BR, Dmitry
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. -- Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:59 AM, David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> 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 The reason the proposal was withdrawn rather than accepted is therefore particularly interesting...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
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:59 AM, David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
At Wed, 26 May 2010 17:59:14 +0400, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
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...)
I suspect Roland's proposal goes back to the days before documents were made available electronically. You might try to contact him - he was head of the C++ compiler construction group at Siemens Nixdorf, so you might be able to find him via google. Dave is right, bye the way. Today is a new day. Don't worry about stuff rejected years ago, although it does help to know what people objected too.. --Beman
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:59 AM, David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
At Wed, 26 May 2010 17:59:14 +0400, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
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...)
I suspect Roland's proposal goes back to the days before documents were made available electronically. You might try to contact him - he was head of the C++ compiler construction group at Siemens Nixdorf, so you might be able to find him via google.
Dave is right, bye the way. Today is a new day. Don't worry about stuff rejected years ago, although it does help to know what people objected too..
Sorry to reopen an old post. Lorenzo, have you found the paper? Regards, Fernando P.
At Wed, 26 May 2010 09:33:41 -0400, 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.
I'm afraid not. I'd like to write one someday :-) -- Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
participants (6)
-
Beman Dawes -
David Abrahams -
Dmitry Goncharov -
Fernando Pelliccioni -
Lorenzo Caminiti -
vicente.botet