ASPN ActiveState Programmer Network
ActiveState
/ Home / Perl / PHP / Python / Tcl / XSLT /
/ Safari / My ASPN /
Cookbooks | Documentation | Mailing Lists | Modules | News Feeds | Products | User Groups


Recent Messages
List Archives
About the List
List Leaders
Subscription Options

View Subscriptions
Help

View by Topic
ActiveState
.NET Framework
Open Source
Perl
PHP
Python
Tcl
Web Services
XML & XSLT

View by Category
Database
General
SOAP
System Administration
Tools
User Interfaces
Web Programming
XML Programming


MyASPN >> Mail Archive >> boost
boost
[boost] Re: CLA/Config file library opinion
by Gennadiy Rozental other posts by this author
May 29 2003 10:41AM messages near this date
[boost] Re: CLA/Config file library opinion | [boost] Re: CLA/Config file library opinion
"Vladimir Prus" <ghost@[...].su>  wrote in message
news:bb4n6o$pfk$1@[...]..
>  Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> 
>  >> 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")
>  >>        ;
>  >
>  > The question arize: Why do you prefer option description to defalt
value,
>  > optional and other modifiers (I still could not reveal the mystery of
>  > second parameter, so couldn't comment here). I prefer treat them all
same
>  > way.
> 
>  I though I've told it to you previously: because uniform syntax will be
much
>  more verbose....

I would not say "much more". From what I view the only difference is
'description' modifier.

>  - Volodya

Gennadiy.




_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Privacy Policy | Email Opt-out | Feedback | Syndication
© ActiveState Software Inc. All rights reserved