Open dyster opened 6 months ago
You can use named-parameters :)
myObject.Dump(members: membersConfig);
Having said that, I'm rethinking the current strategy for customizing the Dumps. It isn't ideal to say the least.
That's hilarious, I remember when they introduced named parameters like 15 years ago but I didn't really understand what it was for when I read it in the release notes and never gave it a second thought. And here we are, I finally figured it out haha.
I don't know if the Microsoft serializers way of having a SettingsObject is the best way of doing it, but once you get used to it you are used to it, and when some nuget I just got is also using a settings object of some sort I hardly ever think twice about it, so I think it makes sense from that perspective.
I think one thing I like about the settings object is that without having to browse code or look online, you can just instantiate it and inspect what all the default values are.
Having just tested the MembersConfig options, i ended up with
myObject.Dump(null, null, null, null, null, null, membersConfig);
Would Dump benefit by a DumpifySettings class similar to XmlSettings and others used in .NET?Yes I know there is the global setting =)