Stefan Strasser escribió:
if we were discussing the definition of a new language, I might agree with you. but this is C++. there is no point in a boost library that no one would use because using it results in public(!) class interfaces that differ from any widely used practice AND the standard library.
Boost.Parameter ? I think I recall reading in D&E that named parameters were proposed for standarization, and rejected. If C# properties were possible to implement with a library (that doesn't rely on UB), I think it should be accepted based on its quality. I would keep using regular member objects/functions, just as I keep using regular function parameters.
. This means that it can't be used in a chain of assignment operations like A.X(B.X(5)) which incidentally looks awful compared to A.X = B.X = 5. For properties, operator= is greater than operator() ;)
I could settle for A.X() = B.X() = 5, that's good enough for me. Agustín K-ballo Bergé.-