Re: [OT] Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada)

[Ioannis Vranos <ivr@remove.this.grad.com>]

REH wrote:

>>Named parameter association. Proper parameter modes
>>"out" and "in out" modes
> 
> I would love have named parameters too.  That way I would not have to
> "agonize" over the "priority" of my default parameters (i.e., if there are
> 10 and I have to change the 10th from its default, I have to define the
> first 9).


The many parameters passed by reference to be modified is an outdated C 
style.


*Today* one may use a std::pair or a combination of std::pairs for 
return values.

E.g.

//Returns 2 values
pair<int, int> somefunc();


// Returns 4 values
pair<pair<int, int>, pair<int, int> >somefunc();

// Returns 3 values
pair<pair<int, int>, int>somefunc();


Also this gets more syntactic sugar with the upcoming TR1 standard 
library extension and more particularly with "Tuple types".


Here are the proposals that have been accepted for the upcoming TR1:

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/library_technical_report.html


Personally although more sugar-rich (and still built with the current 
C++ facilities, which demonstrates the power and expressiveness of the 
language), I am not sure we needed Tuple types, since std::pair does the 
job. :-)

I suppose tuple types continue to be convenient for something like 10 
return values, since it is just a returned object with the contained 
values, but I think returning (or passing) so many values means 
something is wrong. :-)


-- 
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys