220 19898 <29c34a3c-e65d-4f4c-894d-baed2fbcc60d@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Arthur Tchaikovsky Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: default arguments Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 124 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <29c34a3c-e65d-4f4c-894d-baed2fbcc60d@isocpp.org> References: <7066b166-9472-4ad6-ac3c-2db527ed7818@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_2570_821305239.1439917260085" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1439917273 26810 80.91.229.3 (18 Aug 2015 17:01:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:01:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mwoehlke.floss@gmail.com To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDL6FI4NYYERBTOJZWXAKGQE6AOZ3AA@isocpp.org Tue Aug 18 19:01:08 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-pa0-f69.google.com ([209.85.220.69]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRkFz-000261-O8 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:01:03 +0200 Original-Received: by pabyb7 with SMTP id yb7sf388040078pab.2 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:01:02 -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=1g0aIgfV2hMdGIjozRV/a/FoHqGX9C0KLO0N8TLHeMQ=; b=Z1Id1rBcsYNWJLo94NeK811QNF4eKNLQNf4yeYVE7TEqih/c4EeSZ7EygMNzJAVEuw VfZWordwUzII7+/hn2rflqq/y5ckdQF/+LWgknKuDXiX9u/OlCKFKI6iPULJBV7prf01 Jq4lo7EVFF9aGaa7m6lqr3yC2Cyb+7Gmh4OWbakgHG8r/Z9cQaRRCh3surUJJGSES9iT Pk7Muoq4e7MadFftAvD47COeSP27BSDWZl9bsqd/eEHlDiyY83jzeBIlljOfiaDYu5+z sUD8KZXZP44L5I3vkqRHkRZqrPD3CsIZXq2JvYz7RIsWHIuKVWv+ategxMccjc91WWNd ZHXA== 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=1g0aIgfV2hMdGIjozRV/a/FoHqGX9C0KLO0N8TLHeMQ=; b=MUIh7MyAai+HNkiJe/00PuCbCez7hdr64G63tFknLBymHbS23e6KYuLWbNbt+ck2Zj JZisZfsEmtPmz1gmHhBySBdbmwqtwjNpWUhf6D688/IUGUSg9EcYfR5JVn7jkG557rH0 0EdRIfbTI+6JPyfsNwHjygqKohYMz4mFaCDjvbo9LGe+7xqU0foOFCdZHkqaO5nnOAtN 7rjyOBKzoPePdfwc6hhm75dZDCghpm5SVyNPMxnKxGorxtuxI9K5BpW3jVJ07Bqo19CP WzQ9X8Ul7keJjWD2gU137lVb+DGOeCX+8FtJkbtSvZupZWvYXymM4dOb55IaQpyDisR7 8+AA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkq77OEkHTCHH0Q+KNhazqaB64HXVPNWH3afAujZm/Yky1GkXRqAwPD1nTNbuUewhf7Znqs X-Received: by 10.67.24.73 with SMTP id ig9mr6590792pad.25.1439917262805; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:01:02 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.30.52 with SMTP id c49ls3127039qgc.81.gmail; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:01:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.81.149 with SMTP id f21mr100830qgd.8.1439917260684; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:01:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: atch.cpp@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:19898 Archived-At: ------=_Part_2570_821305239.1439917260085 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2571_748565907.1439917260085" ------=_Part_2571_748565907.1439917260085 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I believe that the conclusion is that they both have pluses and minuses. On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 17:49:08 UTC+1, Andrey Semashev wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Arthur Tchaikovsky > wrote: > > I dear to disagree with the statement that the following example is self > > documenting and easier to read: > > auto c3ptr = new C{.timeout = 1}; > > How is this^^^ easier to read? And how is this self documenting? Only on > > surface it seems that it is, both, but when you really think about it it > is > > neither self documenting nor easy to read. Why? Because having only one > > argument initialized in {}, that is .timeout, leaves us with question, > is > > that the only argument to that class, or are there any other? If so, are > > those arguments inited by default? If so, how many? Etc. > > Compared to this: > > auto c3ptr = new C(default, 1); // use a shorter timeout > > It is immediately obvious how many arguments there are and which one of > them > > are default. > > Your argument works both ways - I cannot tell what other members C has > and how they are initialized by this constructor. In addition I don't > see what the constructor arguments are without looking at the > interface or docs. > > > And as for self documentation? > > auto c3ptr = new C(default, /*timeout*/1); // use a shorter timeout > > Multi-line comments are evil - they cause problems when you want to > comment a block of code. Besides interface documentation I try to > avoid them as much as possible. > > IMHO, the true named member initialization is much more > self-explanatory and less error prone. > -- --- 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_2571_748565907.1439917260085 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I believe that the conclusion is that they both have pluse= s and minuses.

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 17:49:08 UTC+1, Andrey Sem= ashev wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2= 015 at 7:37 PM, Arthur Tchaikovsky <atch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I dear to disagree with the statement that the following example i= s self
> documenting and easier to read:
> auto c3ptr =3D new C{.timeout =3D 1};
> How is this^^^ easier to read? And how is this self documenting? O= nly on
> surface it seems that it is, both, but when you really think about= it it is
> neither self documenting nor easy to read. Why? Because having onl= y one
> argument initialized in {}, that is .timeout, leaves us with quest= ion, is
> that the only argument to that class, or are there any other? If s= o, are
> those arguments inited by default? If so, how many? Etc.
> Compared to this:
> auto c3ptr =3D new C(default, 1); // use a shorter timeout
> It is immediately obvious how many arguments there are and which o= ne of them
> are default.

Your argument works both ways - I cannot tell what other members C has
and how they are initialized by this constructor. In addition I don'= ;t
see what the constructor arguments are without looking at the
interface or docs.

> And as for self documentation?
> auto c3ptr =3D new C(default, /*timeout*/1); // use a shorter time= out

Multi-line comments are evil - they cause problems when you want to
comment a block of code. Besides interface documentation I try to
avoid them as much as possible.

IMHO, the true named member initialization is much more
self-explanatory and less error prone.

--

---
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_2571_748565907.1439917260085-- ------=_Part_2570_821305239.1439917260085-- .