On 2 May 2014, at 09:16, David Tweed <[email protected]> wrote: > I wonder if, with C++11 named initialization syntax for PODs, something > could be done so that in cases like this a (function specific, I guess) > "optional options object" could be used. (This would avoid one of the big > problems with C++ optional arguments, which is that if one towards the end > needs to be set to a non-default value all the preceding options need > setting.) That would certainly make things a lot easier to read in cases > like these.
The related issue is that they complicate overloading. I've been bitten a few times in clang code by the compiler deciding that, when I specified a pointer instead of a reference for a parameter, it would happily coerce it to a bool and then use the default values for the rest of the parameters, giving some very strange results - no errors, no warnings, just the code doing something unexpected. David _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
