> While I don't find the interface proposed by Vladimir to be offensive,
> when you get a pile of function arguments of the same type together a
> named parameter interface *can* be a help. I don't think I'd use
> operator<<, though. If it's really about readability I'd tend to
> sacrifice some non-intrusive extensibility for a cleaner syntax:
>
> parameter<std::string>( "output" )
> .place_to( output_file_name )
> .default_value( "/tmp/abc" )
> .description( "output file name" )
> ;
I showed example out of context.
In fact my interface would look like this:
cla::parser<...> p;
p << ignore_mismatch
<< named_option( "version" )
<< place_to( show_version )
<< description( "...")
<< named_parameter<int>( "trace_level" )
<< default_value( 1 )
<< place_to( g_trace_level )
<< description( "...")
...
template<typename T>operator<<( cla::parser<...>, T& ) is the only interface
currently supported for both parameters and modifiers.
I may consider other propositions.
> But anyway, neither of these looks like a huge win over a function
> which simply takes 3 parameters. Probably the complexity isn't
> justified.
There maybe significantly more modifiers for parameter. For example:
optional, multiplicable, separator. Now you need to deal with 7 values.
Also I in fact believe that my version is simpler, cause only one interface
function required.
> Dave Abrahams
Gennadiy.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
