David Abrahams wrote:
>> parameter<std::string>( "output" )
>> << place_to( output_file_name )
>> << default_value( "/tmp/abc" )
>> << description( "output file name" )
>
> 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" )
> ;
>
> But anyway, neither of these looks like a huge win over a function
> which simply takes 3 parameters. Probably the complexity isn't
> justified.
And one important point: there are only three unnamed parameters. There's a
bunch of other things that can be configured, and they all use *named*
interface:
desc.add_options()
("output", "file", "output file name").default_value("/tmp/abc")
;
- Volodya
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
