On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:06:17 -0500, Jason E. Aten <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jim <[email protected]> wrote:
In addition to that, named template arguments would allow you to create
very customizable, yet lean types. It would be possible to parameterize
all
components. Basically, if you're not pleased with the default search
algorithm or container type of a more complex object then you can
specify
your own.
Interesting, I hadn't considered the benefits of template arguments with
names as far as leanness of types.
The best part of naming arguments for functions and methods, in my
experience, is that if you add additional arguments to a method, it is a
cheap change. I don't have to go and find and change all the client calls
that have already been written. I can leave all of the existing source
with
client code untouched, and only specify the new parameter in the new
invocation that wants to use the new functionality. I only have to
recompile. Low maintenance. Nice.
This isn't as dynamic as you think. If you change a function's argument
types or count, the client must recompile. However, their code shouldn't
have to change.
-Steve
