On 05/02/2014 02:18 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
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
David, I think you're pointing out a slightly different issue... one
I've also been bitten by.
Does anyone know of a legitimate reason to have an implicit conversion
to bool as a function argument? Maybe we should add an optional warning
for this case in particular?
Philip
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
