My vote for the Named Parameters library is a clear YES, but ... the documentation needs to be improved. - What is your evaluation of the design? I think the design is sound. It provides all the functionality I can think of. I particularly like lazy evaluation of defaults and controlling the overloadset. I am convinced that removing spurious overloads will become ever more important in modern C++. - What is your evaluation of the implementation? I did a very brief reading of the code. No complaints here. - What is your evaluation of the documentation? The documentation needs improvement. Ignoring a few typos in the current documentation I still think the documentation is not sufficient for using the library. A reference is needed. - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? To me named parameters have the potential to significantly improve the interfaces used in C++ code, be it application code or library code. A problem that AFAICS every named parameter lib faces is the issue of keyword scoping. The keyword objects have the potential to reserve names in scopes that they shouldn't. I think the only way to find out how big this problem is in practice and what the best idioms for scoping the keywords are is by using named parameter libraries. The other issue is the tradeoff between ease of use/interface design and the associated compiletime and runtime costs. E.g. compile speed and codesize. Again I think we will only find out by experimenting. - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? No. - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? About 1.5h - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? No, as far as named parameter concepts outside C++ are concerned. Regards Thomas -- Thomas Witt witt@acm.org