On Tuesday, 24 July 2012 at 23:03:39 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 July 2012 at 07:03:05 UTC, Chris NS wrote:
I can't help thinking it sounds rather like a job for... named
parameters. Just imagine it:
Yeah, that could do it too, but named parameters have been
brought up a few times too and there's opposition to it.
I kinda prefer the struct to named params anyway because
you can store it for later too. But I could go either way.
Oh I know; which is why I wrote in a slightly snarky manner. I
still hold out hope. Your reuse argument for structs is, of
course, completely valid and compelling.
Another possibility, in cases like that presented in the original
post, is to write a single struct to be used with all the
relevant functions -- but then there's the problem of memory
abuse. In some cases it may be fine, but tossing around several
copies of a very large struct, and only using two or three of the
fields in a given case, is just unreasonable.
-- Chris NS
