A proposal for named arguments for C++

Post by wahern » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 7:31 PM UTC

pb2au wrote: post #27

robmccoll wrote: post #2

One of my favorite C preprocessor hacks - emulating named parameters in C. https://gist.github.com/robmccoll/5236408528c8c664c201

Pretty cool hack, but not one I'd hope to run across in any real code. Between the nondescript function header and the inability to differentiate between an unset argument and a zero-set one, this macro would too quickly become a headache.

You can pre-initialize any member you want to something other than 0, such as -1. The C standard permits multiple initializations of the same member, and defines the value to be that of the last initialization. So if the application sets the member again, it all works properly.

Both GCC and clang complain about such initializer "overriding", but I habitually disable those warnings whenever I start a new project. (I also contributed the patch to clang to be able to disable that warning =)

Initializer overrides and missing braces are the two dumbest diagnostics that, sadly, both GCC and clang spit out. Using '{ 0 }' is the _only_ way to initialize a compound automatic variable where you do not know (and shouldn't depend on) the internal layout, and it's perfectly legal C.

Re: A proposal for named arguments for C++

Re: A proposal for named arguments for C++