Rene Rivera wrote: [...]
I don't remember there being a requirement to use macros on this named_params library. And I showed how to do exactly that, wrap C style function, in my example (in my review) without macros.
From the library docs, my impression was that macros is the recommended way to go. [...]
It may be "fun", but the overhead is overwhelming. I find this alternative more appealing...
namespace { boost::keyword<struct title_t> title; boost::keyword<struct style_t> style; } struct widget { widget() { }
int create( const char * title, int style );
template<class Params> inline int create(const Params & params) { return create(params[title], params[style | int(45)); } }; int main() { widget w; w.create((title = "my widget)); return 0; }
Especially considering that the overhead is *zero* with release optimizations. And you can also do the more normal construction by adding:
template<class Params> widget(const Params& params) { create(params[title], params[style | int(45)); }
I fail to see how the functor gives you anything here. Perhaps you need a better counter example?
Well, namespace { boost::keyword<struct title_t> title; boost::keyword<struct style_t> style; } is not very pretty. I don't know how to make a better counter example. Your example is just completely different from mine. You create a normal wrapper, I create a functor (well sort of). It is a standard stuff (function pointers and functions)... It is like saying give me a good counter example as to why a function pointer is better than a function. :) So I am not sure what do I have to counter. Eugene