"Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message news:j623kg$rfi$1...@digitalmars.com... > > The proposed change adds net negative value. It forces people to create an > object in order to call a simple function >
Not really: OptGetter.optGet(...); Even that "OptGetter." can be eliminated (parhaps after the existing opget is deprecated). And for cases that need non-default settings, setting values on a struct is no harder than setting a few variables. You accuse people of using unsubstantiated "good" and "better", but then you dismiss and hand-wave-away half the stated benefits. Can we at least stop with the meta-arguments? That kind of debate inevitably ends up becoming hippocritical.
