• Charles Sanders (9/9) Nov 21 2003 Having 10 different constructors to simulate default arguments becomes
• Raiko (5/14) Nov 21 2003 Default arguements would be nice to have, as long as they could be sprea...
• Sarat Venugopal (7/12) Nov 22 2003 That's not so bad, if the compiler can remind you. One is more concerned...
• Luna Kid (4/12) Nov 24 2003 I'd welcome that, too. With even the named arg.
• Matthew Wilson (6/22) Nov 24 2003 I'll be into it, as long as someone can give a couple of compelling

"Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting comcast.net> writes:

Having 10 different constructors to simulate default arguments becomes
really hard to maintain when you want to modify the structure.  I realize
this is probably very difficult but I think its very important, it would
make life _alot_ easier.

Also could you put ( im not sure what you call this )

operator char [] () {}

and the like on the wish list ?


Lets all ask walter to give us default arguments, rally round the flag!

C

Raiko <Raiko_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <bpmn7d$145f$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Charles Sanders says...
Having 10 different constructors to simulate default arguments becomes
really hard to maintain when you want to modify the structure.  I realize
this is probably very difficult but I think its very important, it would
make life _alot_ easier.

Also could you put ( im not sure what you call this )

operator char [] () {}

and the like on the wish list ?


Lets all ask walter to give us default arguments, rally round the flag!

C

Default arguements would be nice to have, as long as they could be spread
throughout the function declaration instead of just at the end. I always had
trouble with remembering to put them at the end (gotta love compiler freak outs
=P)

Sarat Venugopal <sarat removeme.huelix.com> writes:

[...]
 
 Default arguements would be nice to have, as long as they could be spread
 throughout the function declaration instead of just at the end. 

That would require named argument support.

 I always had trouble with remembering to put them at the end (gotta love
compiler freak outs
 =P)

That's not so bad, if the compiler can remind you. One is more concerned 
  about subtle runtime errors that result (due to any feature), because 
the compiler has no problems with the code syntactically and semantically.

Cheers,
Sarat Venugopal

"Luna Kid" <lunakid neuropolis.org> writes:

"Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bpmn7d$145f$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Having 10 different constructors to simulate default arguments becomes
 really hard to maintain when you want to modify the structure.  I realize
 this is probably very difficult but I think its very important, it would
 make life _alot_ easier.

 Also could you put ( im not sure what you call this )

 operator char [] () {}

 and the like on the wish list ?


 Lets all ask walter to give us default arguments, rally round the flag!


I'd welcome that, too. With even the named arg.
syntax, it would be fabulous...

Sz.

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

 Having 10 different constructors to simulate default arguments becomes
 really hard to maintain when you want to modify the structure.  I


realize
 this is probably very difficult but I think its very important, it would
 make life _alot_ easier.

 Also could you put ( im not sure what you call this )

 operator char [] () {}

 and the like on the wish list ?


 Lets all ask walter to give us default arguments, rally round the flag!


 I'd welcome that, too.

I'll be into it, as long as someone can give a couple of compelling
examples. We've not had any yet.

 With even the named arg.
 syntax, it would be fabulous...

Well, I'd like this with or without defaults.

We'll also need this in the template parameters, so as to avoid some of the
nightmare workarounds in C++.