Posts Tagged ‘named parameters’

[Note: thanks to Davide Di Gennaro for having reviewed this post and for having suggested some improvements. A paragraph has been completely written by Davide.]

[From Wikipedia] In programming, named parameters refer to a computer language’s support for function calls that clearly state the name of each parameter within the function call itself. A function call using named parameters differs from a regular function call in that the values are passed by associating each one with a parameter name, instead of providing an ordered list of values.

Compare with a traditional positional function call:

createArray(10, 20); // what does this mean, precisely?
createArray(length=10, capacity=20); // oh, I see...
createArray(capacity=20, length=10); // same as previous

A typical example:

// some pseudo-language
window = new Window {
   xPosition = 10,
   yPosition = 20,
   width = 100,
   height = 50

This approach is especially useful if a function takes a large number of optional parameters, and users are usually going to accept the default for most of them.
Several languages support named parameters (e.g. C#, Objective-C, …). C++ does not. In this post, I’m going to explore some of the classical ways to emulate named parameters in C++ as well as mention new approaches.


Only to mention, the most trivial way to emulate named parameters is through comments 🙂

Window window {
 10, // xPosition
 20, // yPosition
 100, // width
 50 // height

This approach is very popular among windows developers, as MSDN pubishes Windows API usage examples with such comments.

Named Parameter Idiom

Imported from Java programming style is the Named parameter idiom (and this is just another post about). The idea is simple: create a proxy class which houses all the parameters. Optional ones are settable via a fluent interface (e.g. by using method chaining):

// 1
File f { OpenFile{"path"} // this is mandatory
   . ... };

// 2 classical version (not compliant with the auto-everything syntax)
File f = OpenFile { ... }
   ... ;

// 3 for auto-everything syntax just add a layer (I prefer 1)
auto f = CreateFile ( OpenFile("path")
 . ... ));

OpenFile is a sort of parameter object and File’s constructor accepts an OpenFile instance. Some authors (for instance, here) argue that OpenFile should have only private members and declare File as friend. This makes sense if you want to add more complex logic to set your parameters via the fluent interface. If you merely want to set plain parameters then a public struct suffices.

In this approach:

  • mandatory parameters are still positional (as the constructor of OpenFile is a regular function call),
  • optional parameters must be copy/move-assignable (basically, settable) – possible runtime penalty,
  • you need to write an extra class (the proxy).

I – almost – never found usages in critical code.

A final note: the fluent interface can be polymorphic as I wrote more than two years ago.

Parameter Pack Idiom

Similar to the one above it’s the parameter pack idiom – from Davide Di Gennaro’s Advanced C++ Metaprogramming – a technique using proxy objects to set parameters via assignment operator (=), resulting in a sweet syntactic sugar:

MyFunction(begin(v), end(v), where[logger=clog][comparator=greater<int>()]);

The actors involved here are:

  1. logger and comparator are global constants; the assignment operator just returns a wrapped copy of the assigned value,
  2. where is a global constant of type “parameter pack”, whose operator[] just returns a new proxy that replaces one of its members with the new argument.

In symbols:

where = {a, b, c }
where[logger = x] → { a,b,c }[ argument<0>(x) ]  →   {x,b,c}

Sketching an implementation, just to give you an idea:

// argument
template <size_t CODE, typename T = void>
struct argument
   T arg;
   argument(const T& that)
      : arg(that)

// void argument - just to use operator=
template <size_t CODE>
struct argument<CODE, void>
   argument(int = 0)
   template <typename T>
   argument<CODE, T> operator=(const T& that) const
     return that;
   argument<CODE, std::ostream&> operator=(std::ostream& that) const
      return that;

// argument pack (storing the values)
template <typename T1, typename T2, typename T3>
struct argument_pack
   T1 first;
   T2 second;
   T3 third;
   argument_pack(int = 0)
   argument_pack(T1 a1, T2 a2, T3 a3)
     : first(a1), second(a2), third(a3)
   template <typename T>
   argument_pack<T, T2, T3> operator[](const argument<0, T>& x) const
      return argument_pack<T, T2, T3>(x.arg, second, third);
   template <typename T>
   argument_pack<T1, T, T3> operator[](const argument<1, T>& x) const
      return argument_pack<T1, T, T3>(first, x.arg, third);
   template <typename T>
   argument_pack<T1, T2, T> operator[](const argument<2, T>& x) const
      return argument_pack<T1, T2, T>(first, second, x.arg);

enum { LESS, LOGGER };
const argument<LESS> comparator = 0;
const argument<LOGGER> logger = 0;
typedef argument_pack<basic_comparator, less<int>, std::ostream> pack_t;
static const pack_t where(basic_comparator(), less<int>(), std::cout);

For the complete code, please refer to Davide’s book.

While this technique may look interesting, in practice it’s hard to generalize. In the book, in fact, it’s included as an example of “chaining” multiple calls to operator[].


Andrzej Krzemieński published an interesting post Intuitive interface, where he mentions an alternative approach.
Named parameters are introduced by companion tags (empty structs used just to select different overloads of the same function). Notable examples of tags are from the STL:

std::function<void()> f{std::allocator_arg, a}; // treats a as an allocator instead of a callble object
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> l{m, std::defer_lock}; // don't lock now

Andrzej proposes tags to improve readability:

// not real STL
std::vector<int> v1(std::with_size, 10, std::with_value, 6);

I like his approach, but – as it stands – you possibly need to create lots of overloads and you cannot choose the order of the parameters. However, there are no requirements on copy-assignment, default values and forwarding is also clear. From the article: “However, tags are not an ideal solution, because they pollute the namespace scope, while being only useful inside function (constructor) call.”

Additionally (from the comments to the article) a reader proposes a slightly different idea that uses a proxy:

std::vector<int> v1(std::with_size(10), std::with_value(6));


Boost has the Parameter Library.

It’s possibly the most complete option if you really need named parameters in C++. An example:

// class code
#include <boost/parameter/name.hpp>
#include <boost/parameter/preprocessor.hpp>
#include <string>


   (int), // the return type of the function, the parentheses are required.
   function_with_named_parameters, // the name of the function.
   tag, // part of the deep magic. If you use BOOST_PARAMETER_NAME you need to put "tag" here.
   (required // names and types of all required parameters, parentheses are required.
      (foo, (int))
      (bar, (float))
   (optional // names, types, and default values of all optional parameters.
      (baz, (bool) , false)
      (bonk, (std::string), "default value")
   if (baz && (bar > 1.0)) return foo;
      return bonk.size();

//client code
function_with_named_parameters(1, 10.0);
function_with_named_parameters(7, _bar = 3.14);
function_with_named_parameters( _bar = 0.0, _foo = 42);
function_with_named_parameters( _bar = 2.5, _bonk= "Hello", _foo = 9);
function_with_named_parameters(9, 2.5, true, "Hello");

Modern named parameters

Modern C++ opened some new doors. Can the new language features lead to slimmer implementations of named parameters?


Method chaining is verbose. I don’t like adding all the functions returning the object itself. What about defining just a struct and assign all the members through a lambda?

struct FileRecipe
   string Path; // mandatory
   bool ReadOnly = true; // optional
   bool CreateIfNotExist = false; // optional
   // ...

class File
   File(string _path, bool _readOnly, bool _createIfNotexist)
      : path(move(_path)), readOnly(_readOnly), createIfNotExist(_createIfNotExist)

   string path;
   bool readOnly;
   bool createIfNotExist;

auto file =  CreateFile( "path", [](auto& r) { // sort of factory
   r.CreateIfNotExist = true;

You still have to provide a parameter object but this approach scales quite better than the classical named parameter idiom in which even chaining functions have to be written.

A variant consists in making File constructible from a FileRecipe (like the named parameter idiom).

How to improve the fluency of mandatory parameters? Let’s mix this approach with tags:

auto file =  CreateFile( _path, "path", [](auto& r) {
   r.CreateIfNotExist = true;

But they are still positional. If you rest easy with a runtime error if a mandatory parameter is missing then use an optional type and check it at runtime.

CreateFile is trivial and left to the reader.

I’ve recently used this approach to configure test recipes and mocks. For example, I needed to create tests of a trivial dice game. Every game had a configuration and tests used to look like:

TEST_F(SomeDiceGameConfig, JustTwoTurnsGame)
   GameConfiguration gameConfig { 5u, 6, 2u };

By using the approach above we could have:

TEST_F(SomeDiceGameConfig, JustTwoTurnsGame)
   auto gameConfig = CreateGameConfig( [](auto& r) {
       r.NumberOfDice = 5u;
       r.MaxDiceValue = 6;
       r.NumberOfTurns = 2u;

Diehards may suggest a macro to reduce verbosity:

TEST_F(SomeDiceGameConfig, JustTwoTurnsGame)
   auto gameConfig = CREATE_CONFIG(
       r.NumberOfDice = 5u;
       r.MaxDiceValue = 6;
       r.NumberOfTurns = 2u;

Exploiting Variadics

Variadics can improve techniques I described above. What about Andrej’s tags approach? Tags could be preferred over the lambda + parameter object because you don’t have to create another object, you don’t have problems with settability and you consider all the parameters the same (e.g. by using the lambda approach you have to treat mandatory parameters differently). But I think tags would be better, if I could:

  • define only one overload of my constructor (or function),
  • decide the order of the parameters (pairs tag-value),
  • the two above + having optional and mandatory parameters.

Something simple like:

File f { _readonly, true, _path, "some path" };

or (my preference):

File f { by_name, Args&&... args) {} 

My idea is: I just want to use variadics to let the user decide the order and let her omit optional parameters.

Imagine two constructors:

File(string path, bool readonly, bool createIfNotExist) {} // all mandatory

template<typename... Args>
File(by_name_t, Args&&... args) {}

A instance of File can be created by using both. If you use the variadic one then I’ll look for all parameters in the pack and delegates the other constructor to really make the instance. Search is (at compile-time) linear over the pack that contains parameters in the order chosen by the caller.

[Note: my implementation is just a proof of concept I did more than one year ago (I only added decltype(auto) somewhere). It could be done better and better.]

Here is how the class designer may look at her class:

File(string path, bool readonly, bool createIfNotExists /*...*/)
   : _path (move(path)), _createIfNotExist(createIfNotExist), _readonly(readonly) // ,etc...

template<typename Args...>
File(named_tag, Args&&... args)
   : File{ REQUIRED(path), OPTIONAL(read, false) // , etc... } // delegating

Prior to show you a working code, it’s clear we can apply the same idea to proxies and obtain:

auto f = File { by_name, readonly=true, path="path" };

The real difference here is about forwarding: with proxies, we benefit from the syntax sugar (the operator=) but now we have to store the values and forward them (not ideal for non-movable/copyable types – and other problems could arise).

Here you can play with the code (and here is the same file on Gist). I first started with the tag version and then I tried with proxies. For this reason there are two versions: the former works with tags ([tag, value]…) and the latter with proxies ( [tag=value]…). Some code could (and should) be refactored.

You’ll find two sections called “PACK UTILS” (two versions: tag and proxy). These contain code I wanted to play originally (e.g. playing with variadics). I also think these kind of operations can be done by using std::forward_as_tuple and then by exploiting tuple’s utilities.

Another part of the code contains macros to retrieve parameters and to generate tags.

The final section is a full example.

Here is what a class looks like:

class window
    // classic constructor
    window( string pTitle, int pH, int pW,
    int pPosx, int pPosy, int& pHandle)
       : title(move(pTitle)), h(pH), w(pW), posx(pPosx), posy(pPosy), handle(pHandle)

    // constructor using proxies (e.g. _title = "title")
    template<typename... pack>
    window(use_named_t, pack&&... _pack)
       : window { REQUIRED_NAME(title), // required
                  OPTIONAL_NAME(h, 100), // optional
                  OPTIONAL_NAME(w, 400), // optional
                  OPTIONAL_NAME(posx, 0), // optional
                  OPTIONAL_NAME(posy, 0), // optional
                  REQUIRED_NAME(handle) } // required

    // constructor using tags (e.g. __title, "title")
    template<typename... pack>
    window(use_tags_t, pack&&... _pack)
       : window { REQUIRED_TAG(title), // required
                  OPTIONAL_TAG(h, 100), // optional
                  OPTIONAL_TAG(w, 400), // optional
                  OPTIONAL_TAG(posx, 0), // optional
                  OPTIONAL_TAG(posy, 0), // optional
                  REQUIRED_TAG(handle) } // required

  string title;
  int h, w;
  int posx, posy;
  int& handle;

You see, both named and tag constructors always delegate the real constructor to perform initialization.

The following code fragment shows how the caller uses the contraption:

int i=5;
// tags version
window w1 {use_tags, __title, "Title", __h, 10, __w, 100, __handle, i};
cout << w1 << endl;

// proxies version
window w2 {use_named, _h = 10, _title = "Title", _handle = i, _w = 100};
cout << w2 << endl;

// classic version
window w3 {"Title", 10, 400, 0, 0, i};
cout << w3 << endl;

by_name here is called use_named, but the meaning is the same.


  • mandatory and optional parameters are uniform (named or tagged)
  • order is not defined a priori
  • tag approach has no forwarding issues


  • compile-time errors could be hard to understand (static_assert helps a bit)
  • available parameters should be documented
  • pollution of the namespace scope still remains
  • default-values are always evaluated (some improvements for laziness are possible)
  • proxy approach is not ideal for forwarding.

A note about the first trouble: Clang is a gentleman and it complains politely. For instance, suppose I forget a title for my window. Here is the output:

main.cpp:28:2: error: static_assert failed "Required parameter"
        static_assert(pos >= 0, "Required parameter");
        ^             ~~~~~~~~
main.cpp:217:14: note: in instantiation of template class 'get_at<-1, 0>' requested here
                :       window { REQUIRED_NAME(title),

This way you know precisely where you miss a required parameter. This could be improved.

A minimalistic approach using std::tuple

[Note: completely by Davide Di Gennaro]

We can exploit some of the power of std::tuple to write an extremely compact and portable implementation. We will stick to some simple principles:

  • the parameter pack will be a special tuple, where a “tag type” is immediately followed by its value (so the type would be something like std::tuple<age_tag, int, name_tag, string, … >)
  • the standard library already has utility functions to forward / concatenate objects and tuples that guarantee optimal performance and correctness in move semantics
  • we will use a macro to introduce global constants that represent a tag
  • the syntax for constructing a parameter pack will be (tag1=value1)+(tag2=value2)+…
  • the client will take a parameter pack as a reference to template type, e.g.
template <typename pack_t>
void MyFunction([whatever], T& parameter_pack)      // or const T&, T&&, etc.
  • With a function call, the client will extract a value from the pack and (say) move it into a local variable.

Ideally, here’s how the code will look like:

namespace tag
   CREATE_TAG(age, int);
   CREATE_TAG(name, std::string);

template <typename pack_t>
void MyFunction(T& parameter_pack)
   int myage;
   std::string myname;
   bool b1 = extract_from_pack(tag::name, myname, parameter_pack);
   bool b2 = extract_from_pack(tag::age, myage, parameter_pack);
   assert(b1 && myname == "John");
   assert(b2 && myage == 18);

int main()
   auto pack =  (tag::age=18)+(tag::name="John");

Here is how the implementation may look like. We will omit most of the potential optimizations for sake of clarity (and they are probably unnecessary).

First, the macro:

#include <tuple>
#include <utility>

template <typename T>
struct parameter {};

#define CREATE_TAG(name, TYPE) \
   struct name##_t \
   { \
      std::tuple<parameter<name##_t>, TYPE> operator=(TYPE&& x) const \
      {  return std::forward_as_tuple(parameter<name##_t>(), x); } \
      name##_t(int) {} \
}; \
const name##_t name = 0

The expansion of CREATE_TAG(age, int); creates a class and a global object. Note that this will work if positioned inside a namespace.

struct age_t
   std::tuple<parameter<age_t>, int> operator=(int&& x) const
      return std::forward_as_tuple(parameter<age_t>(), x);
   age_t(int) {}

const age_t age = 0;


Conceptually the assignment

age = 18

Translates into something similar to:

make_tuple(parameter<age_t>(), 18);

Observe that we wrote:

std::tuple<parameter<age_t>, int> operator=(int&& x) const

As written, we require an r-value on the right. First, this is an extra safety feature: to increase the readability of the code with parameter packs, you may want to assign constants, not variables (otherwise, renaming the variable would be sufficient). e.g.

int myage = 18;
f(myage); // ok, clear

g((...) + (age=18)); // ok, clear
g((...) + (age=myage)); // compiler error, and redundant from a readability point of view

Second, we can exploit move semantics:

The difference between

std::tuple<parameter<age_t>, int> operator=(int&& x) const
   return std::make_tuple(parameter<age_t>(), x);


std::tuple<parameter<age_t>, int> operator=(int&& x) const
   return std::forward_as_tuple(parameter<age_t>(), x);

is very subtle. The latter returns std::tuple<…, int&&>, but since the return type is tuple<…, int> then tuple’s move constructor is invoked.
Alternatively we could write

std::tuple<parameter<age_t>, int> operator=(int&& x) const
   return std::make_tuple(parameter<age_t>(), std::move(x));

Now, we add a suitable tuple-concatenation operator.

We informally agree that all tuples starting with parameter<T> have been generated by our code, so without any explicit validation, we just cat them:

template <typename TAG1, typename... P1, typename TAG2, typename... P2>
std::tuple<parameter<TAG1>, P1..., parameter<TAG2>, P2...>
operator+ (std::tuple<parameter<TAG1>, P1...>&& pack1, std::tuple<parameter<TAG2>, P2...>&& pack2)
    return std::tuple_cat(pack1, pack2);

Very simply, this function will do a simple pattern matching on two tuples: if they both look like:

tuple<parameter<tag>, type, [maybe something else]>

then they are joined together.

Finally, we publish a function to perform the extraction of an argument from the pack. Note that this function has move semantics (i.e. after a parameter is moved out of the pack).

template <typename TAG, typename T, typename... P, typename TAG1>
bool extract_from_pack(TAG tag, T& var, std::tuple<parameter<TAG1>, P...>& pack);

the effect of this function is:

if the “pack” contains parameter<TAG>, then var receives the value immediately following, and the function returns true. otherwise something bad happens (we can choose between: a compiler error, return false, throw exception, and a few more…)

To make this selection possible, actually the function will be:

template <typename ERR, typename TAG, typename T, typename... P, typename TAG1>
bool extract_from_pack(TAG tag, T& var, std::tuple<parameter<TAG1>, P...>& pack)

So we will invoke it as:

extract_from_pack< erorr_policy > (age, myage, mypack);

Due to variadic templates pattern matching, extract_from_pack knows that the pack has the form tuple<parameter<TAG1>, … > so it needs to examine recursively if TAG is equal to TAG1. We will do this dispatching the call to a class:

extract_from_pack< erorr_policy > (age, myage, mypack);


extractor<0, erorr_policy >::extract (age, myage, mypack);

which in turn calls

extractor<0, erorr_policy >::extract (age, myage, std::get<0>(pack), mypack);

which has two overloads:

extract(TAG, … , TAG, …)

which succeeds, performs the assignment and returns true, or

extract(TAG, … , DIFFERENT_TAG, …)

which keeps on iterating, calling again

extractor<2, erorr_policy >::extract (age, myage, mypack);

when iteration is not possible, error_policy::err(…) is invoked.

template <size_t N, typename ERR>
struct extractor
   template <typename USERTAG, typename T, typename TAG, typename... P>
   static bool extract(USERTAG tag, T& var, std::tuple<parameter<TAG>, P...>&& pack)
      return extract(tag, var, std::get<N>(pack), std::move(pack));

   template <typename USERTAG, typename T, typename TAG, typename... P>
   static bool extract(USERTAG tag, T& var, parameter<TAG> p0, std::tuple<P...>&& pack)
      return extractor<(N+2 >= sizeof...(P)) ? size_t(-1) : N+2, ERR>::extract(tag, var, std::move(pack));

   template <typename USERTAG, typename T, typename... P>
   static bool extract(USERTAG tag, T& var, parameter<USERTAG>, std::tuple<P...>&& pack)
      var = std::move(std::get<N+1>(pack));
      return true;

template <typename ERR>
struct extractor<size_t(-1), ERR>
   template <typename TAG, typename T, typename DIFFERENT_TAG, typename... P>
   static bool extract(TAG tag, T& var, std::tuple<parameter<DIFFERENT_TAG>, P...>&& pack)
   { return ERR::err(tag); }

template <typename ERR, typename TAG, typename T, typename... P, typename TAG1>
bool extract_from_pack(TAG tag, T& var, std::tuple<parameter<TAG1>, P...>& pack)
   return extractor<0, ERR>::extract(tag, var, std::move(pack));

Due to the flexible nature of parameter packs, the best error policy would be a plain “return false” (any stronger error would in fact make that parameter mandatory). So:

struct soft_error
   template <typename T>
   static bool err(T)
      return false;

However we are free to chose any of these:

struct hard_error
   template <typename T>
   static bool err(T); // note that static_assert(false) here won’t work. can you guess why?

struct throw_exception
   template <typename T>
   static bool err(T)
      throw T();
      return false;

An additional improvement could be a redundancy check, that prevents code like (age=18)+(age=19).

The code for this is short, but it requires some subtle manipulation with variadic templates, so we leave it as an excercise.

Final notes

I have not discussed about runtime techniques, e.g.:

void MyFunction ( option_parser& pack )
   auto name = pack.require("name").as<string>();
   auto age = pack.optional("age", []{ return 10; }).as<int>();

Whereas the opening techniques I have presented are fairly consolidated, last ideas are just work in progress and I’m still trying to understand if they make sense. The code I’ve shown is just a proof of concept and it does not claim to be optimal nor suitable for production. I wrote these lines more than one year ago, to practice with variadics and I finally found some time to summarize my ideas in a decent (I hope) post and share with you. If this will be helpful or inspiring to anyone, I’ll be really glad.

I found a recent proposal aiming to introduce named arguments in C++ here. Cool!

Anyhow I have a question for you: where would you have wanted to use named parameters in C++?