Add an option to extend collection-like fields

[andy128k]

Addresses #114

[andy128k]

@TedDriggs I am not aware of such crates. I agree that name of setter <field>_extend_one is bumpy (it follows std). But guessing singular name of a setter from the plural name of a field and do it properly (English is hard :)) will take much more code than this feature deserves.

• <field>_append or append_<field> look better but semantically incorrect for unordered collections (e.g. HashMap)
• <field>_insert or insert_<field> are too broad (what is an insert position?)
• <field>_add or add_<field> are too Java-ish :smirk:
• Here my English vocabulary reaches a hardcover.

[TedDriggs]

Here my English vocabulary reaches a hardcover.

Your vocabulary is totally up to the task; the challenge here is that the underlying concept is more complex than a single word will accurately convey.

In the original issue, one proposal is that for some field example, calling builder.example(...) would push/extend/add an item, while builder.examples(...) would overwrite the whole collection. What if the declaration looked like this:

pub struct MyStruct {
    #[builder(setter(multiple(replace = "policies")))]
    policy: Vec<Policy>,
}

This would then generate

pub struct MyStructBuilder {
    policy: Option<Vec<Policy>>,
}

pub struct MyStructBuilder {
    policy: Option<Vec<Policy>>,
}

impl MyStructBuilder {
    pub fn policy(&mut self, value: Policy) -> &mut Self {
        self.policy
            .get_or_insert_with(|| Default::default())
            .extend(::std::iter::once(policy));
        self
    }

    pub fn policies(&mut self, value: Vec<Policy>) -> &mut Self {
        self.policy = Some(value);
        self
    }
}

The second setter is only emitted if replace = "..." is present in the setter's declaration. The main advantage of this approach is that the names stay concise, and each additional setter is opt-in:

• The simplest builder attribute provides the simplest behavior
• Declaring #[builder(setter(multiple))] changes the setter using the extend approach you've shown here, but doesn't force a second setter
• Declaring #[builder(setter(multiple(replace = "...")))] does create both setters, and puts the burden on the deriver to choose a good name.

Thoughts?

[andy128k]

@TedDriggs What if a field is named in plural form? In the case of #[builder(setter(multiple))] a setter will be fn policies(&mut self, value: Policy)? This looks strange.

What about #[builder(setter(multiple(one = "policy", all = "policies")))]? And if names are not given (#[builder(setter(multiple))] then fall back to <field_name> for all and <field_name>_add for one.

[ShaneEverittM]

In David Tolnay's proc-macro workshop, he uses the syntax: #[builder(each = "name")] above the field to be extended, which will generate a function called "name" that extends the collection. Would love it if this PR was merged.

[andy128k]

I like each = "name" and created an alternative PR #199

[TedDriggs]

Closing in favor of #199