David, thanks for your comments, they are very good. I'll look them over and respond tonight when I have more time to formulate meaningful answers. David Abrahams wrote:
I hope you don't feel your efforts have gone to waste, but I don't think there's much left to do. From my point-of-view, it was not a waste at all because it prodded us to get the NTP feature done in Boost.Parameter.
I don't feel the effort was wasted. Two of my personal goals for doing it was to spur getting NTPs into Boost but also to have a vehicle for me to learn about mpl. The former seems to have been accomplished and the latter most definitely was. :)
Daniel tells me you wrote over 400 tests for your library! It might be a great contribution if the logic of those tests could be reworked to test Boost.Parameter instead. At the very least we'd discover if we were missing anything important provided in your work.
I didn't actually write 400 tests, the computer did. :) I have a Perl script that walks through all possible combinations of specifying (or not) parameter values for a three-argument template. I could probably adapt the script for named_parameters fairly easily once I understand the interfaces. Given my brief scan of your comments it probably won't generate 400 tests because my understanding is that there are some restrictions in your implementation about how unnamed/positional parameters are bound. That's not a criticism, just something to keep in mind when counting tests. -Dave