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

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On 5/21/18 10:07 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> 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.

But how do you use it?

SomeObject!(Options(true, false, 42, "guess what this does"))

-Steve