"Alexander Terekhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Edward Diener wrote: > [...] > > the system for setting default parameters somehow being changed to solve > > this problem, so that a user can override a default without having to > > override all > > default parameters but that doesn't seem to solve the problem in my mind. > > Something clearer and cleaner is needed but I don't know what it is. > > You might want to take a look at this: > > http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=199608081434.IAA07848%40ncar.ucar.ED U > (Subject: comp.std.c++: Default arguments) > > The "bottom line" was: > > ...why not provide an additional meaning for the "default" keyword... > > Well, the question/problem/suggestion didn't raise much attention, however.
I am glad to see that others were aware of this limitation in C++ as long as 6 years ago. I thought the C++ template solution by Damian Conway was pretty neat, but a keyword, maybe "default" as you suggested, might be better since it eliminates a dependency on an external classes and lets the compiler figure out what it is completely capable of doing easily. I definitely like the simple solution of a keyword over named arguments or anything dependent on names. It is easy for the compiler to figure out default values in function calls or template instantiations so using a "default" keyword should work pretty transparently. But this discussion has little to do with Boost per se anymore and should really be in comp.std.c++ instead. Nonetheless thanks for pointing me to that long ago discussion. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
