"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > "Edward Diener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote... > >> "Edward Diener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> > Nonetheless I do favor a compiler change such as allowing the "default" > >> > keyword to be used instead as Mr. Terekhov suggested in that same thread. > >> > That would be much cleaner and should be easy for any compiler to handle. > >> > This is one case where I would like to see the language updated with such an > >> > easy, transparent solution to the problem. Of course if others don't see it > >> > as much of a problem, they wouldn't be in favor of the solution since it > >> > involves the dreaded "C++ language change" > >> > >> Oh, it's a problem alright, but I'm still not very convinced of that > >> solution. The problem with interfaces that have lots of positional > >> parameters is that you forget what the different positions mean. To > >> solve that problem, you need either named parameters or a > >> position-independent interface. > > > > Since the C++ language already has embraced positional parameters as > > its normal means of passing information to functions, classes, or > > templates, it is a little disingenuous to complain about them. > > Do you know the meaning of "disingenuous"? Did you really mean to > accuse me of intellectual dishonesty?
Not at all. My dictionary doesn't define "disingenuous" as "intellectual dishonesty" but even by its definition it was a very poor choice in the expression above and I shouldn't have used it along with the "complain" rhetoric. Just got carried away. What I meant to say was that arguing against positional default parameters goes against the grain of the language IMHO. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
