Better option for options (pun intended)

[leha-bot]

In private conversation @nenomius suggests that instead of this options initializing:

options.option(option{}, option{}, option{});

it's better to use:

auto options = libname::options{option, option, option, option}

hey, guys, @shiz01 , @oficsu , what do you think about this design idea?

[oficsu]

As I can see, there has been already implemented pipe syntax like this:

auto options = libname::options{ argc, argv }
    | libname::option( /* ... */ )
    | libname::option( /* ... */ );

With ADL, we can remove redundant libname mentions and improve readability:

auto options = libname::options{ argc, argv }
    | option( /* ... */ )
    | option( /* ... */ );

But I'm not sure if this is a reliable tool. And I think, it's also possible to improve the first example and make it similar to the previous one:

auto options = libname::options{ argc, argv }
    .option( /* ... */ )
    .option( /* ... */ );

Isn't this the best from both worlds?

If in a future we want to have option groups, your second example might be changed to:

auto options = libname::options {
    libname::option( /* ... */ ), 
    libname::group("groupname"
        libname::option( /* ... */ ), 
        libname::option( /* ... */ ))
    libname::option( /* ... */ ),
};

And with my proposal to:

auto options = libname::options { argc, argv }
    .option( /* ... */ )
    .group("groupname")
        .option( /* ... */ )
        .option( /* ... */ )
    .close()
    .option( /* ... */ );

And I think it's more expressive syntax. But there may also be some drawbacks that I'm not seeing and these are only theoretical thoughts at now

[shiz01]

Yes, it is planned to make builder-like syntax. But there’s no time yet :(

[shiz01]

You can also add a constructor overload, with a variadic of options. Easy.
For:

auto options = libname::options{option, option, option, option};

But there is no free time at the moment :(