Cedric has written up a history of why Named Parameters were not added to C++.
I understand the point made. It is true that named parameters don’t give you new functionality, yet I still prefer the “look” of methods in this manner.
I much prefer:
Window w = new Window(x:0, y:0, color:blue)
to:
Window w = new Window().x(0).y(0).color(blue);
OR (if you don’t happen to return an yourself on your set)
Window w = new Window();
w.setX(0);
w.setY(0);
w.setColor(blue);
Also, this is just looking at constructors…. what about the other 99% of methods?
foo.doX(String firstName, String lastName);
versus:
foo.doX(firstName=x, lastName=y);
Also, even for constructors you may want to say “this object HAS to be constructed with a Foo, a Bar, and a Baz”. If you have to call set*() methods then you need to verify your state in other ways.
This is really a matter of taste, and I just happen to like them (and understand if you don’t).
