std.getopt suggestion

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 9/29/11 9:25 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "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).

Why do you need it if all you want is to get rid of it?

> 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.

Not criticizing any hippopotamus here :o). I think I stated my argument 
fairly and without appealing to either honor or guilt by association.


Andrei