std.getopt suggestion

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:j623kg$rfi$1 at 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.