std.getopt suggestion

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:39 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I don't think it would improve the module design, even without
> considering cost of change. It just adds useless clutter.

Well, out of those who have responded in this thread, you're the only one who 
thinks that. Everyone else has been in favor of either making those config 
options passable to getopt or in favor of putting getopt on a struct which 
holds the those config options (with a free function which uses the init value 
of the struct for the common case). And yes, that's an argument by ad populum 
(or whatever the exact name is), but what's considered "clutter" is 
subjective. Yes, the improvement would be relatively minor, but so's the cost 
of the change, and while it doesn't necessarily show that you're wrong when no 
one seems to agree with you, it does at least say something when no one agrees 
with you.

- Jonathan M Davis