220 19888 <201ecd9f-f845-4a4d-8498-ea9df55667aa@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nicol Bolas Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: default arguments Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 06:54:39 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 102 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <201ecd9f-f845-4a4d-8498-ea9df55667aa@isocpp.org> References: <736eb378-52a4-43ba-b3b5-a73719ba70af@isocpp.org> <86717349-1fce-4247-9372-08eedce4cd30@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_4521_841019049.1439906079138" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1439906086 30564 80.91.229.3 (18 Aug 2015 13:54:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:54:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bop@gmb.dk To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCEKFTV6ZUMBBIHSZSXAKGQEPM5UNDY@isocpp.org Tue Aug 18 15:54:46 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-qk0-f197.google.com ([209.85.220.197]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRhLe-0002Xd-9H for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:54:42 +0200 Original-Received: by qkfj126 with SMTP id j126sf240638974qkf.0 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 06:54:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence :mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help :list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=tQ6U7oyuXbrTkIG4v5c2eZkmxZfAI8LIte36bnsDsDk=; b=gto/Vc2DapMTRL5ueaIlYR3UPqkwdtJ3Zhx0+skmvQ4Ltz/jvNd6tT+PtdKEHdJ3dD 3v/3hbs66uJT5JL9XEMlajHUWGzIw/5QVfjXQiL1PRJFpFNdtTPLNitYtitC4L4aIHoY 1qToSbLcquD047KEaHCIVW/yrAjBSSAALD/OUsudA6/00irI8yUmi0guNXQCniMRrrFQ I1SqZr1BGFXn5DkCn7E2bQ/o5s7jNesQE5I/l3lCSDAFGKwuOLoCy40i7AUoJHFsIFBF bH60vnd2iEV3klOo368SFoqsyYeV5MDMJP+6bCqV4i51mrIhhAiu9vUC2BLiJlyM7jQW 1Xew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=tQ6U7oyuXbrTkIG4v5c2eZkmxZfAI8LIte36bnsDsDk=; b=P4jjxAMoetaJaHCPjPW0osq670VlmM9D2oBzkVxNLY2T/nVbZh9zvNMn3uZl7MLQup b69khLD0+uzZSX2gsFMke1YfCKOlka4S1gKCPTRcr29cNm79DSwF4pFl/SCP+xDKC51x RHS3gfdrGaqpTvEnleORk5IO5NFvtD3sS/8D+f8DpCr8IWTaVpkjyBhAS3QXvpRCjwcb CuW4iu2lAuW4gVaDJGdFJKOYk9FfxibE/s6qcVvS66lxI9Hr6oFLgh0Q4dIoTw9OVfII CQxJbYArlKUPYrBHMER/gmgo/IIhL2w8O2pYUbiTy+iBqFIMWMZQsio7xmpxAFA40fgW ynlw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlzYkc4YPZZfI4r18m8QUffmkNX9GdjsEc3Hn4f5QBuXNCJjcMa67iZ4/mnfmE/e7YdYOJv X-Received: by 10.13.216.146 with SMTP id a140mr6050623ywe.6.1439906081374; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 06:54:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.97.68 with SMTP id l62ls3154295qge.89.gmail; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 06:54:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.85.232 with SMTP id n95mr86758qgd.21.1439906079909; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 06:54:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: jmckesson@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: std-proposals@isocpp.org X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:19888 Archived-At: ------=_Part_4521_841019049.1439906079138 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_4522_1945168116.1439906079138" ------=_Part_4522_1945168116.1439906079138 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 5:20:20 AM UTC-4, Arthur Tchaikovsky wrote: > > "I would MUCH rather just rewrite all these constructors" > > But did you do it or simply wish that at some point you will find the time > (and will) to do it, but in the mean time you are still using those "old" > constructors? Because I also would MUCH rather have C++ cleaned up, yet > this will never happen, and I need to use C++ in its current state. What I > wish is very different to what I have. > > And as for you saying that defaulted constructors are antipattern, is that > a fact or it is simply your opinion? > .... What else would it be but an opinion? Is there some entirely objective definition of "anti-pattern" that could be applied? Of course not; its definition is based on user experience, which is always at least somewhat subjective. That being said, if quite a few C++ programmers, particularly those who frequently work with codebases that use them, consider something to be an anti-pattern, that's at least evidence for the position. And I don't think I've seen too many people saying "we need people using default arguments in C++ *more*". I'm not against the functionality on principle. It's a simpler solution than named arguments. And considering that the C++ committee has decided that named arguments pretty much are never going to happen, it's probably the best you can hope for. At the same time, I don't think it's a very important feature. I agree with the idea that using lots of default arguments (which this feature encourages) is at the very least a code smell if not an anti-pattern. So I can't say that this is a good idea. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. ------=_Part_4522_1945168116.1439906079138 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 5:20:20 AM UTC-4, A= rthur Tchaikovsky wrote:
"I would MUCH rather just rewrite all these constructors&qu= ot;

But did you do it or simply wish that at some point you will fin= d the time (and will) to do it, but in the mean time you are still using th= ose "old" constructors? Because I also would MUCH rather have C++= cleaned up, yet this will never happen, and I need to use C++ in its curre= nt state. What I wish is very different to what I have.

And as for y= ou saying that defaulted constructors are antipattern, is that a fact or it= is simply your opinion?

... What else would it = be but an opinion? Is there some entirely objective definition of "ant= i-pattern" that could be applied? Of course not; its definition is bas= ed on user experience, which is always at least somewhat subjective.
That being said, if quite a few C++ programmers, particularly those who fr= equently work with codebases that use them, consider something to be an ant= i-pattern, that's at least evidence for the position. And I don't t= hink I've seen too many people saying "we need people using defaul= t arguments in C++ more".

I'm not against the functi= onality on principle. It's a simpler solution than named arguments. And= considering that the C++ committee has decided that named arguments pretty= much are never going to happen, it's probably the best you can hope fo= r.

At the same time, I don't think it's a very important fea= ture. I agree with the idea that using lots of default arguments (which thi= s feature encourages) is at the very least a code smell if not an anti-patt= ern. So I can't say that this is a good idea.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
------=_Part_4522_1945168116.1439906079138-- ------=_Part_4521_841019049.1439906079138-- .