[sc34wg3] TMCL discussions

Lars Marius Garshol larsga at garshol.priv.no
Fri Mar 27 07:27:07 EDT 2009

* Lars Heuer
> Actually, I rarely missed function overloading in languages like,  
> say Python. In almost all cases you can replace the overloading of  
> functions with default parameters, so default parameters and keyword  
> assignments might be an alternative.

I have the same experience, but as you write

> [...] would not require changes to the CTM syntax, while kw- 
> assignments/default-values would change the syntax and would open  
> the door for proposals to leave out the parenthesis for template  
> invocations which would require again an overhaul of CTM. [...]

My feeling is that template overloading is OK, but that other changes  
are not. So I would like us to either say yes or no to template  
overloading, and basically not open the can of worms. :-)

> Conclusion: I wouldn't mind if CTM provides template overloading and I
> think I'd use it, but I think I could live without template
> overloading.

We decided to add it. It came up as the solution to two or three  
different TMCL problems. They were all eventually resolved in other  
ways, but it seems to me that this is so useful that we should just do  

Will send out slides from the meeting later.

--Lars M.

More information about the sc34wg3 mailing list