David Abrahams wrote:
"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> writes:
b) make it optional rather than obligatory
I don't understand; It's already optional.
c) set the precedent for other libraries which might benefit from a named parameter interface - without the need to
You don't need to "re-do the library." It's a trivial transformation to add a named parameter interface to an existing function. Just rename it slightly or put it in a detail namespace and dispatch to it from the named-parameter-enabled function that uses the implementation function's original name. To clients of the original function, there's practically no detectable difference.
OK - I understood that the suggestion was to replace the public interface with a parameter based one. So, once it is characterised as an optional add-on then it raises the question as to why the same idea shouldn't be more widely applied. That is what I meant. Robert Ramey