Hey,

I actually planned to write a detailed proposal on default values, bc I
think they are kinda restrictive currently.

What I suggest for this particular use case to simply use the default
keyword, because it is not ambiguous in this context.

   f(1,default,3)

would be the proposed syntax. I have other ideas, for example inheriting
(in class inheritance) and *overriding* defaults in virtual functions.
(This is not as hard as one might think.)

Thanks,
   Gergely

Barry Revzin via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> ezt írta
(időpont: 2022. márc. 6., V, 21:13):

>
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 9:54 AM Arthur O'Dwyer via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 10:26 AM David Jones via Std-Proposals <
>> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> Consider the function
>>>
>>> void foo(int i = 1, int j = 2, int k = 3);
>>>
>>> *Trailing *default argument values can be accepted implicitly by simply skipping
>>> them in the function call:
>>>
>>> foo(); //Accept default values for i, j, and k
>>> foo(1); //Accept default values for j and k, supply value for i
>>> foo(1,2); //Accept default value for k, supply values for i and j
>>>
>>> But to my knowledge, there is no method for implicitly accepting
>>> *leading *default argument values - they must be copied out explicitly:
>>>
>>> foo(1,2,5); //Accept default values for i and j by copying them out
>>> explicitly, supply value for k
>>>
>>> I suggest that this could be done implicitly thus:
>>>
>>> foo(,,2); //Accept default values for i and j, supply value for k
>>> foo(,1); //Accept default values for i and k, supply value for j
>>>
>>
>> That would close the door on the vastly vastly more useful Python-style
>> syntax
>> x = f(
>> 1,
>> 2,
>> )
>> which in C++ today means "syntax error," but in Python and other modern
>> languages means the same as "x = f(1, 2)".
>> Under your proposal, it would have to mean the same as "x = f(1, 2,
>> /*some defaulted thing*/)".
>>
>
> I'm not sure what about this is useful. Maybe in the general sense of
> always allowing an extra trailing comma, which works in some C++ contexts
> but not others, which makes code gen annoying sometimes?
>
> But there is a different vastly more useful Python-style syntax here that
> solves the original problem, namely:
>
> f(k=2); // Accept default values for i and j, supply value for k
> f(j=1); // Accept default values for i and k, supply value for j
>
> There have been several named argument proposals in the past, including
> Andrew Tomazos' latest entry (which I think is promising). I'd rather we go
> in that direction. Named arguments solve a lot more problems than simply
> the ability to pass default values to intermediate ones, and named
> arguments solve this particular problem quite a bit better than the
> suggested syntax here too.
>
> Barry
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>