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