On 16/03/15 17:34, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, David Brown wrote:
>
>> In a discussion on comp.lang.c, the subject of "named parameters" (or
>> "designated parameters") has come up again. This is a feature that some
>> of us feel would b
Note that a proposal for named arguments was recently presented to the C++
standards committee [1], and they did not seem receptive to it [2].
The proposal was for a different syntax (name : value), but the objections were
not related to the syntax.
Regards,
Nate
[1] http://open-std.org/JTC1/S
> >If only the first variant is allowed (with the named parameters in the
> >order declared in the prototype), then this would not affect code
> >generation at all - the designators could only be used for static error
> >checking.
> >
> >If the second variant i
only the first variant is allowed (with the named parameters in the
order declared in the prototype), then this would not affect code
generation at all - the designators could only be used for static error
checking.
If the second variant is allowed, then the parameters could be re-ordered.
This is
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, David Brown wrote:
In a discussion on comp.lang.c, the subject of "named parameters" (or
"designated parameters") has come up again. This is a feature that some
of us feel would be very useful in C (and in C++). I think it would be
possible to includ
Hi,
In a discussion on comp.lang.c, the subject of "named parameters" (or
"designated parameters") has come up again. This is a feature that some
of us feel would be very useful in C (and in C++). I think it would be
possible to include it in the language without leading t
