Doug Gregor wrote:
On Nov 22, 2004, at 12:16 AM, Joel wrote:
Re: alternative defaults approach.
But on the other hand, with this method you don't have the ability to make the defaults depend on the other parameters passed to the function. In the BGL, we have lots of dependencies between parameters where we'll build, e.g., a property map based on the vertex index parameter (which may be defaulted) and the value type of a weight map (which may be defaulted).
This approach also forces me to name the result type, which can be rather annoying.
I see. I understand now (yours and Daniels replies). I take it that we agree that a declarative interface for defaults handling is better than an imperative interface, but that we are limited by the language. Seems like a challenge to me :-) Thanks! -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net