Re: A pattern I'd like to see more of - Parsing template parameter tuples

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 21 May 2018 at 00:13:26 UTC, Ethan wrote:

Code for context: https://github.com/GooberMan/binderoo/blob/master/binderoo_client/d/src/binderoo/util/enumoptions.d

Something struck me at DConf. I was watching the dxml talk and hearing about all these things that weren't being implemented for one reason or another. And I was thinking, "But what if I want those things?" Being D, it'd be pretty easy to opt in to them with template parameters and static if controlling what code gets executed at runtime.

But that brings up a bit of an annoying thing. Namely, the old school way of doing such things:

class SomeObject( bool option1, bool option2, Flags iHateBools = Flags.Default, int ohIDontWantThisToBeDefaultedButRefactoringSucks = -1 )

{
}

Pretty obnoxious design pattern.

But we're in D. We can do much better. It makes sense to do the following:

class SomeObject( LooseOptions... )
{
}

Unless I'm missing something we can do a lot better in D :

struct Options
{
    bool foo;
    bool bar;
    int a;
    string b;
}

class SomeObject(Options options)
{
    static if (options.foo)
    {
    }
}

No magic templates or anything fancy.

--
/Jacob Carlborg