From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-13 18:02:47
David Abrahams wrote:
> I don't see why not. What am I missing?
> Anyway, it's surely possible to make a BOOST_NAMED_PARAMS_MEMBER_FUN
> if neccessary.
I think it isn't working because the implementation function is declared
twice in class body. So BOOST_NAMED_PARAMS_MEMBER_FUN should drop the
forward declaration. You'll probably also need a
BOOST_NAMED_PARAMS_CONST_MEMBER_FUN. I don't think there's a nice
solution for constructors.
Daniel