It's a failing of many type systems of older languages (except Pascal).

The best way in many languages for flags is using unsigned integers that are botwise-ORed together.

In pseudocode:

    Object someObject;
    foo (someObject, Object.Flag1 | Object.Flag2 | Object.Flag3);

Whatever language you are using, it probably has some namespaced way to define flags as `(1 << 0)` and `(1 << 1)` etc.

▲ arethuza 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you really need all of that I think I'd go with a separate object holding all of the options:

options = new SerializeOptions();

options.PrettyPrint = true;

options.Flag2 = "red"

options.Flag3 = 27;

serialize(someObject, options)

▲

vanviegen 5 days ago | parent [-]

So 1 line of C/C++ becomes 5 lines of Java/C#? That sounds about right! :-) Though I'm sure we can get to 30 if we squeeze in an abstract factory or two!

	▲	wallstop 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		You can do the above in C#, I haven't written Java in a decade so can't comment on that. I don't really understand your argument though - the options approach is extremely readable. You can also do the options approach in C or C++. The amount of stuff that you can slap into one line is an interesting benchmark to use for languages.

▲ dandersch 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's always crazy to see languages like C being able to beat high-level languages at some ergonomics (which is usually their #1 point of pride) just because C has bitfields and they often don't.

▲ RaftPeople 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> The best way in many languages for flags is using unsigned integers that are botwise-ORed together.

Why is that the "best" way?

▲

lelanthran 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Why is that the "best" way?

"Best way" is often contextual and subjective. In this context (boolean flags to a function), this way is short, readable and scoped, even in C which doesn't even have scoped namespaces.

Maybe there are better ways, and maybe you have a different "best way", but then someone can legitimately ask you about your "best way": `Why is that the "best" way?`

The only objective truth that one can say about a particular way to do something is "This is not the worst way".

▲

waste_monk 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's simple, efficient, and saves space in memory. While not as big a deal these days where most systems have plentiful RAM, it's still useful on things like embedded devices.

Why waste a whole byte on a bool that has one bit of data, when you can pack the equivalent of eight bools into the same space as an uint8_t for free?

	▲	RaftPeople 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, that works when trying to conserve memory to the degree that a few bytes matter, but the downside is that it's more complex, less obvious. I've done exactly what you propose on different projects but I would never call it the "best" method, merely one that conserves memory but with typical trade-offs like all solutions.