Coding Styles: bools, structs, or enums?

I often find myself writing or consuming API’s which require the caller to specify some sort of options.  I’ve seen numerous ways to specify those options, but I’ve yet to find one that I really like.  Let’s work with an example throughout the rest of this post.  Imagine we’re working on an application which has some notion of a User.  We’re now about to create a function to output a User to a Stream.  We want to provide two options:

  1. Should we include the User’s email address?
  2. Should we include the User’s phone number?

I can imagine several ways of designing this API.  First, we could use a couple of bool parameters, like this:


void DisplayUser(User user, TextWriter stream, bool displayEmail, bool displayPhoneNumber)

Next, we could use a flags enum to represent the options, like this:

enum DisplayUserOptions
    Email = 0x1,
    PhoneNumber = 0x2,
    Both = (Email | PhoneNumber),
void DisplayUser(User user, TextWriter stream, DisplayUserOptions options)

Finally we could create a struct which contains two bools instead of the enum, like so:

struct DisplayUserOptions
    public bool Email;
    public bool PhoneNumber;
void DisplayUser(User user, TextWriter stream, DisplayUserOptions options)

I don’t like passing the two bools, because I find that reading the callsite of a method designed like this to be difficult, because you don’t know what the parameters mean anymore.

DisplayUser(user, Console.Out, true, false);

Does this display the email address or the phone number?  I can’t remember anymore.  I know that parameter help can tell you the names of the parameters, but that doesn’t help when I’m doing a code review in windiff, since windiff doesn’t have parameter help tool-tips yet.

On my current team, we have a convention that when we call a method like this, we put the parameter name in a comment, so that we can see it, like:

DisplayUser(user, Console.Out, true /*displayEmail*/, false /*displayPhoneNumber*/);

However, in general, I don’t like to rely on conventions that force people to put comments in a certain style to make the code readable.  If possible, I’d rather design the API in such a way that it has to be readable.

The second option is using enum flags to represent the options.

DisplayUser(user, Console.Out, DisplayUserOptions.Email);

My problem with this approach is that it is hard to get right, both for the caller of the API, and the implementer.  This example is sort of trivial, but I can remember a time when I was dealing with a bit-field that contained 31 unique bit values that could be set and unset independently.  Getting all of the ~ and | and &’s just right was very hard, and once it was done, it was hard to figure out what it was trying to do.  A final reason that I don’t like enums is that in practice I often find that there are more behaviors that I want to be able to add to the options which isn’t possible with enums.  For example, it might be a requirement that two of the options are mutually exclusive.  It’s difficult to ensure that this is enforced with an enum.

Finally, we have the option of using a struct, which is addresses both of the two concerns above.  You can write a call like:


DisplayUserOptions options = new DisplayUserOptions();
options.Email = true;
options.PhoneNumber = false;
DisplayUser(user, Console.Out, options);

Well, that’s certainly clear.  It also makes it easier to understand control flow that sets or clears the options, and to understand conditions based on them.  It also gives a place to add that behavior: I can add methods to the struct, make the fields into properties which have setters that do validation, etc.

The problem with this approach is that in simple cases like the above, it is much more verbose than either of the other two alternatives.  However, I recently realized that in C# 3.0, we can take advantage of Object Initializers to make the simple case simple again:

DisplayUser(user, Console.Out, new DisplayUserOptions { Email = true, PhoneNumber = false });

It’s almost like having named parameters in C# 🙂

What do you think?  Which alternative do you prefer?  Do you have another one that I haven’t thought of?

Comments (49)

  1. KeeperOfTheSoul says:

    I tend to use the second option quite a lot myself when regularly passing around more than one value between methods, or when the parameters to a function get quite large.

    The third form does look rather nice when I only need to set one or two properties such as in the example, but any more than about three and I’d probably stick with the second form.

    I like the third form, its like named parameters from VB, but with the ability to easily move it out of being in-line when the number of parameters gets to be too many.

  2. The first option with a set of boolean parameters is a bad idea, not just for readability, but for extensibility.  If you add additional options in a later revision, you would have to change the method signature, which would result in a breaking change to your API (internal or external, it’s still undesirable).

    As for options 2 and 3, using an Enum would be compatible with .NET 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, and 3.0, but object initializers would only work with .NET 3.5.  Having said that, I think that using an object with the appropriate fields is better than an Enum, since you could abstract the initialization into a function to improve readability (I’m thinking of your 31 options scenario here, which would also make the object intializers convention formatting a challenge).

  3. kevinowen says:

    I pretty much agree with your take on this.

    The first option, bools, doesn’t really have any benefits, but does have a lot of drawbacks.

    Enums are nice for relatively simple situations (like your example), while using a settings object (be it a class or a struct) works well for more complex scenarios.

  4. I frequently use *Options structures with nullable types representing optional parameters.

  5. With the anonymous types feature of C# 3.0, can’t

    DisplayUser(user, Console.Out, new DisplayUserOptions { Email = true, PhoneNumber = false });

    be shorteneed to?:

    DisplayUser(user, Console.Out, new { Email = true, PhoneNumber = false });

    Seeing as though the DisplayUserOptions type’s only purpose is to provide named arguments to the DisplayUser function, it doesn’t seem important to keep the class name there.  

    Then again, you could argue this reduces the clarity of the function call for later programmers, but, assuming DisplayUserOptions is a sealed class, the documentation for the DisplayUser function should make it pretty clear what the type of the third argument is.

  6. Great use of object initializers. Will be even nicer when C# supports initializing readonly structures with that kind of syntax…

  7. kevinpilch-bisson says:

    Bruce, unfortunately, you can’t omit the type name in this scenario.  The reason is that the method needs to *take* a named type, and there isn’t a way to do that.  Anonymous types don’t unify to named types, even if they have the same set of property names.

  8. Jay Bazuzi says:

    Down with premature optimization!  Up with readability & obvious correctness.

    I’ve created too many bugs in my career because of bit twiddling.

    That was a vote for the structs of bools.

  9. Craig says:

    I prefer the following:

    DisplayUserOptions options = new DisplayUserOptions();

    options.Email = true;

    options.PhoneNumber = false;

    DisplayUser(user, Console.Out, options);

    However, I do not care for Object Initializers in C# 3. To me, the verbosity of the two are the same because they compile into the exact same code. It’s nothing but syntactic sugar.

    There are also several advantages to not using object initializers:

    1) Can more freely add comments

    2) Easier to debug

    The boolean option is the worst in regard to both readability and (perhaps more importantly) extensibility.

  10. kevinpilch-bisson says:

    Hi Craig,

    I understand that Object Initializers compile to the same IL, and so their performance and semantics are identical, but that doesn’t mean they are equally verbose.  By verbosity, I mean, "how much code does it take to express the idea."  C# has several other constructs which are purely syntactic sugar, but which are nonetheless very useful.  Some examples are:

    1. Loop constructs like while/do/for.  These are all just a series of goto’s.

    2. the "using" statement, which exands to a try/finally with a Dispose call.

    3. the "foreach" statement, which expands to a try/finally, a call to GetEnumerator and a while loop.

    4. Anonymous methods, which expand to a display class plus method.

    5. Lambda’s which are equivalent to anonymous methods but with less verbose syntax.

    6. Query Expressions.

    7. etc.

    Just because something is "syntactic sugar" doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be used if it makes your code easier to read.

    Regarding adding comments, I agree that an object initializer inline in a call is not a good structure for adding comments.  If I needed to, I would probably apply the "introduce explaining variable" refactoring to end up with an object initializer assigned to a local:

    var options = new DisplayUserOptions


       // Free to add comments here.

       Email = true;

       PhoneNumber = false;


    DisplayUser(user, Console.Out, options);

    Regarding debugging.  This is a good point.  It’s too bad that the VS debugger doesn’t support expression level debugging, so that you could set a breakpoint and step on each of the lines of object initializer.  I hope that capability gets added in a future version of the debugger.  However, for options type structs like these, I usually find that the expressions are simple enough that I don’t need to break on individual ones.

  11. Welcome to the thirty-seventh edition of Community Convergence. Visual Studio 2008 has been released

  12. Welcome to the thirty-seventh edition of Community Convergence. Visual Studio 2008 has been released

  13. Kirill Osenkov says:

    I vote for structs as well 🙂 I also find it a good pattern to derive the struct name by adding ‘Options’ to whatever name the method has.

  14. Kyralessa says:

    I don’t like _any_ of those options.  Personally, I think the clearest option would be an enum with all the possibilities, such as, say:

    enum DisplayUserOptions







    Now you don’t have to worry about passing in

    DisplayUserOptions.Email | DisplayUserOptions.PhoneNumber

    which sounds rather unclear when read aloud ("Email OR PhoneNumber", when you really mean the customer has "Email AND PhoneNumber").

  15. kevinpilch-bisson says:

    Kirill, my naming convention varies.  If the options are related to a class (like MessageBoxOptions in the BCL), I would rather make it a nest type named "Options".  That way I have less things to rename when I refactor.  In my example I was using a pseudo-visitor pattern, and so the expection is that there might be a bunch of "DisplayFoo" calls, where each Foo might want a different set of options.  In this case, I didn’t have a good name for the options type.

  16. kevinpilch-bisson says:

    Hi Kyralessa,

    I agree that having a "combination value" in the enum is probably better than the straight enum, but still has three drawbacks in my opinion:

    1. The implemenation of the "DisplayUser" becomes a little bit more complex, because you need to check combinations of flags.  However this is a minor issue from an API design point of view, since it affects the implementor, instead of the caller.

    2. It results in a cominatorial explosion of the possible values.  For example, in my case of 31 possible flag values, your enum would need to have 2^31 different values specified explicitly, which can’t be good 🙂

    3. There is still no logical home for all of the other behaviors and validation associated with it.  In my experience, that behavior is almost always _there_, it’s just hard to _see_ unless you’re looking for it, and you have a better place to put itt.

  17. Tom Kirby-Green says:

    I generally follow the guidance in the .NET Framework Design Guidelines – but there is a case I think for reviewing those given the new syntactic forms that C# 3.0 enables.

  18. Programmer says:

    I have been using bools in simpler situations and enums in slightly more complex ones. But I must admit that the situations I had had to code for never had 2^31 possibilities. I would think that anytime it gets more complex, use a class and assign it the responsibility of figuring out what’s right and what’s not.

    Someone suggested to enumerate all possibilities in an enum rather than be burden the consumer with providing a|b when what you mean is that a and b. The disadvantage that I see is that even though you have all the valid possibilities explicitly stated it won’t stop someone from passing yourenum.a|yourenum.b & yourenum.c or any other combination to your API. How’s that going to be handled?

    Therefore, IMO,

    – bools in academic/example sitations

    – enums in slightly complex ones

    – classes in more complex ones

    seems to be a solution to me.

  19. Kenneth Adams says:

    I’d like to see syntax like this:

    public class Class1


       public bool GetSomething(int iParam, string sParam)


           return true;



    Which is then called like this (analogous to the new way of calling constructors in 3.0):

    Class1 c = new Class1();

    bool ret = c.GetSomething( iParam = 0, sParam = "you lose");

    Is this what an earlier commenter referred to as "named parameters"?

  20. kevinpilch-bisson says:

    Kenneth, yes that’s named parameters.

  21. Tundey says:

    I like the enum option. Regardless of what you do, when it comes to 31 different options to single method, it’s gonna get complicated. Besides, if you use the struct option, the code to set all 31 fields of a struct will be more than the code to AND and OR 31 enums.

  22. kevinpilch-bisson says:


    I agree that the case of having 31 different options is a pathological case.  And while it may end up being more code, I think that the code for a struct based solution is easier to understand, and so I tend to prefer it, even though it might be a little bit more verbose.

  23. Shadders says:


    I’d start by thinking of the consumers of my method. Is it something any programmer can use? If so, then I’d probably create more than one method, rather than try anything flash. I’d think about the likely uses of the process and create methods that have an easy set of parameters.

    A good API should cater for what a consumer wants to do. Rather than force the consumer to pass parameters, give the consumer a method that does what they want in most situations. EG DisplayUser, DisplayUserAndEmail, DisplayUserAndPhone and DisplayUserWithEmailAndPhone.

    Sure, you get long method names, but the use of the method is clear in its name.

    Plus, it gives the implementer of the methods the ability do what they like. Separate routines for all of the public methods? Fine. Can consolidate the public methods into one routine? Again fine. If you and you alone are the consumer of your methods, then you reap what you sow.

    In the hypothetical example of many possible parameters: My knee jerk response is your object model is not right. I’ve struggled to come up with an example of complexity that would need a heavily parameterised method. The only thing I can think of is something we are talking about at work, allowing users to specify the combination of columns they want to see in a report. The combinations quickly get out of hand and are next to impossible for a single method to deal with. In this case, forget an all-seeing method that can deal with the choices, break down the choices into chunks and have a different method process each chunk.

  24. kevinpilch-bisson says:


    I pretty much agree with all of your points, and I frequently do use your strategy of having multiple named methods.  This does suffer from the combinatorial explosion problem however.  I’ll admit that 31 options isn’t a good example, but even if you have 6 or so independent options, that’s still a lot of methods to maintain.

    The real life example where I had 31 was for determining what things to include in completion lists.  The options were things like: include static, include instance, include non-public, include properties/events/methods/types/namespaces, etc, but you’re right that it isn’t a very good way of structuring the code.

  25. Kirill Osenkov says:

    Kevin, good point about using a nested type for Options! This starts looking somewhat like a Memento to me!

    Others: of course, it’s not like one option is the right way and two others are wrong – you can totally use any approach depending on your situation. It is that thinking about picking the best approach and being explicit about your decision – that’s what makes for good code.

    Also, that’s where Introduce Parameter Object refactoring might come in handy.

    Finally, here’s a post about ‘named arguments’ in C#:

    <a href=""></a&gt;

  26. Laëré says:

    I use myself a combination of option 2 and 3, depending on the situation.

    It’s sure that option 1 isn’t viable if there is more than one parameter, and if I am sure that the function won’t be extended.

    However, I think that using explicit combination values in enums are not a good idea when there are more than 3 or 4 values (2^4), because it tends to complicate things from implementer perspective, and from caller perspective (should I look for enum.option1ANDoption2ANDoption3 or option2ANDoption1ANDoption3 etc…)

    OK this can be solved by using a convention..

    For the function name option, it suffers (in my point of view) from the unability of dissociating option declaration from function call. In fact, there is chance that it will ultimately only move the issue.

    if(checkBoxEmail.Checked && checkBoxName.Checked)







    I prefer

    DisplayUserOptions options;



    options.Email = true;




    options.Name = true;



    I find it easier (even more easier if we want to add an option to display the user’s phonenumber)

  27. KTMT says:

    I use techniques 1 and 2 with the same concerns. There will be no proper solution unless named parameters are made part of C# –something I’ve long wished for.

    So that’s my vote: "Technique 4" of a better future world: C# named parameters.

  28. I prefer using the enum with params, so the call would be something like this:

    DisplayUser(user, Console.Out, DisplayUserOptions.Email, DisplayUserOptions.PhoneNumber);

    This way the caller doesn’t have to know bitwise operations (for small list of options).

    You still may use bitwise operations to let the code more readble in a very large list of options.

  29. Followin is an example of code using Enums/params/Extension methods:

    Using this extension method (that could be inproved with generics):

    public static class DisplayUserOptionsExtension {

           public static Boolean In(this DisplayUserOptions option, params DisplayUserOptions[] options) {

               DisplayUserOptions selectedOptions = DisplayUserOptions.None;

               foreach (DisplayUserOptions selectedOption in options) {

                   selectedOptions |= selectedOption;


               return (selectedOptions & option) == option;



    We can use a code like this to call the method:

    DisplayUser(user, Console.Out, DisplayUserOptions.Email, DisplayUserOptions.PhoneNumber);

    And the implementation of the method is not difficult either with the extension method:

    public void DisplayUser(User user, TextWriter textWriter, params DisplayUserOptions[] options) {

               if (DisplayUserOptions.Email.In(options)) {

                   // print e-mail



  30. Scott says:

    I tend to agree with Ricardo. This sort of dependency injection keeps the complexity of the parameters with the parameters. This object can grow to deal with changes without affecting the calling and called function(s).

    I think that wherever possible complexity and or functionality should be encapsulated.  Of course this approach introduces complexity in terms of implementation but as Shadders has pointed out we reap what we sow.

    I often find myself in both consumer and provider roles. I am lazy. So I tend to work overly hard to minimize the work I will have to do in the future. I think of this as an investment which has the largest return in terms extensibility and containment of possible defects.

  31. kevinpilch-bisson says:


    I hadn’t considered the use of params enums.  It’s very interesting, I’ll have to think about it more.

  32. James Wilkinson says:

    Although the consumer of Ricardo’s solution has a very easy syntax, it looks like this comes with a performance penalty – constructing a temporary object for a single boolean check.

    C++ used to use constructs like this:

    union DisplayOptions




     bool Email:1;

     bool PhoneNumber:1;


    int BitFlags;


    …which, although a little ugly to define, gave performance + readability.

    Is there no C# equivalent?

  33. Gilles says:

    I can think of 1.5 alternatives. The 0.5 is to use bools, but moderating the downside Foo(true) by supplying a couple of consts

    const bool kShowMail = true;

    const bool kHideMail = false;

    The true alternative (and the pattern I typically use) is by using non-bitfield enums.

    enum DisplayEmailOption {




    enum DisplayPhoneOption {




    Type-safe, expandable both to other things (DisplayAddressOption) as well as values

    enum DisplayEmailOption {





  34. Bevan says:

    Of the three options given, I’d go for (d) None of the above.

    For the simple case, I’d just create two different, well named, methods instead of having the boolean parameter.

    For more complex cases, I create a MethodObject to capture the configuration and required execution.

    To make things readable, I’ll often use a static method on a utility class plus some method chaining.

    For example:



    Requires a little bit of setup work, but is very clean to read – plus intellisense can help by showing what’s valid.

  35. kevinpilch-bisson says:

    Hey Bevan, thanks for the comment.  Your second approach looks a lot like the Fluent Interface approach that I mention in my follow up post.

    I agree that it’s a great way too, since you can create an API that really flows together well.

  36. David says:

    I generally prefer enums; I have never found bitwise operations particularly complicated or burdensome, and the ease of use and readability on the consumer side is a huge plus. The only time I would move to using an options class would be if, as you pointed out in your post, there was the possibility of complex interactions between options, which is generally not very common; and even then, often this can be overcome by factoring your options into two or three enums where the individual options are addressing a common issue.

    I have often thought that the Reflection API’s could have done much better in this area.

  37. Pete Austin says:

    None of the above work well with Web services, where you need the caller and callee to be as independent as possible.

    Your client may be several versions behind the server, which is an extreme version of late binding I guess. Also callers will likely be using a different programming language.

    So I vote for ordinary bitmaps (not even enums).

  38. David says:


    .NET enums map directly onto a bitmap for purposes of exposing the method to external callers. Why not use the enum from within .NET to make your life easier?

  39. fernan says:

    I prefer the enums anytime. Once you get a hang of how bitmasking works it’s all very easy. What I usually do is use the enum as a method argument and then just declare local boolean variables for each of the enum items and initialize them with the bitmask values. For example if my enum has three items called READ=1, WRITE=2, and APPEND=4

    bool read = ((byte)(enumParam & myEnum.READ)) > 0;

    bool write = ((byte)(enumParam & myEnum.WRITE)) > 0;

    bool append = ((byte)(enumParam & myEnum.APPEND)) > 0;

    If there are too many enum items or each value is only used once then I’d probably do the bit-masking in-place rather than declaring local variables. I would probably be casting to int or long or whatever base type my enum needs to accomodate all enum items.

  40. fernan says:

    #1 and #3 should definitely work fine on a web service. When making changes to your webservice you must make sure that your changes will not break earlier client versions if backward compatibility is required, on that aspect these techniques are no different than anything else.

    If you use the technique #1 then if you add a parameter you will need to create a separate method with the new parameters and keep the old one intact for compatiblity.

    If you use #3 you can add more fields to the structure without breaking older versions unless the new field is required on your logic which wouldn’t be the case if you’re trying to keep backwards compat.

    Now the best method to use in a webservice IMO would be the bitmasking one (#2). Of course, it won’t work out of the box with web services. You would have at least 2 choices:

    1) You could create a custom serializer/deserializer that serializes enums as their base type (an integer type) or serialize all items that are ORed together as a delimetered list, I guess the later would make more sense since that way the client won’t need the codes for each item.

    2) Simply make the parameter an integer type and pass the items ORed together and then casted to int as follows "(int)(myEnum.ITEM1 | myEnum.ITEM2)". You can then AND the parameter value with each of the enum items to determine if the item has been ORed with the parameter value.

  41. fernan says:


    Functionally I don’t see any problems with your approach but I don’t think it’s that readable.

    Functionally that’s exactly the same as using properties since a property is just a method internally like C++ getter or setter methods.

    However .NET’s OOP model uses properties for this purpose, so a .NET programmer will expect that to be done with properties so that will be rather confusing for a .NET programmer.

    If you must use methods for any reason you might want to use the std. convention used in cpp and other languages for getter and setters (use a get or set prefix, the set takes in a value and the get returns it.

    A few questions:

    1) How can you tell if the WithEmail() method has already been called for an object?

    2) Do you have a WithoutEmail() method to clear that flag?

    Whatever the answer is, properties make more sense to me.

    I just realize that here I’m discussing the use of methods (used as getter or setters) vs. using properties in .NET which functionaly is the same thing,

    but this post is talking about method arguments vs. method calls to set the arguments and there is a huge functional difference in that case.

    #1 you cannot use methods to provide values for another method unless you make the variable global which unless you really need it global for anohter reason is a very bad idea.

    #2 even if the method is infact an instance method and you do need to save the parameter globally for the instance it’s still a bad idea to use a method call just to set a value that could be set on the next call without the need of allocating and deallocating a stack frame for that method.

  42. David says:


    Why do you say that enums won’t work out of the box with web services? An enum is just an integer type with predefined constants and some additional syntax checking. For purposes of exposing your method to a webservice, its the exact same thing.

  43. Tyler says:

    Enums for the win!

  44. jtomasko says:

    While no size fits all, when the initialization comes to more than a few items, I like the structs.  There is nothing to say that bools (which I like) and enums (which I also like) can not live together in these structs, depending on what is being initialized. (Say one item might be a method of formating the text).

    When using the structs, we have the option of using object initializers, or to pre-build the struct and fill it member by member before the call using it.

    I also do not like the idea of having a handfull of functions to use depending on how I want to initialize.  I believe that the fewer the functions in a struct/class the easier it is to maintain and understand.  I find when I browse a struct/class that has a large function base my eyes start to glaze over.

    Thank you for posting this.  I find it a good thing to go back and question how we do the common tasks, and appreciate seeing how others deal with these.

  45. Norbert says:

    Up to now, I only used the enum approach, but structs may be a good alternative if you have many options.

    But then again: I think "too many options to us an enum" is a big hint to think about the design again. Mutual exclusive options fall into this category, as well: Why not make two methods, instead?

    In case you go for the complex option parameter, another struct approach might be handy to be able to start with an enum first and migrate to stuct later:

    struct DisplayUserOptions


       static readonly DisplayUserOptions Email = new DisplayUserOptions(1);

       static readonly DisplayUserOptions PhoneNumber = DisplayUserOptions(2);

       private DisplayUserOptions(int bits) { … }

       // overload &, | operators …


    (I did not try this in real code, just a thought…)

  46. MagicBox says:

    It all depends on the complexity. Nothing else. The complexity determines the best suitable method.

    A boolean parameter would be used in conjunction with a method that is named in such way that it is obvious what the boolean parameter does:



    The next step of specifying options is the enum, naturally. When options are exclusive, the enum IS best suited for the option.


    MyReport.Export(ExportTo.File, fileName);

    The other situation is the example used in this topic. We’re now speaking of "Flags"

    DisplayUser(user, DisplayUserFlag.EMail|DisplayUserFlag.Name);

    This however would only be feasible with a limited number of flags, where there is no interdependancy on flag bits.

    The next level is using a class. This way obviously offers the most flexible way of specifying parameters.

    public class MyMethodDisplayOptions


       public bool ShowEmail;

       public bool ShowAddress;

       public bool ShowCity;


    enum ExportTo {PDF, Text, Printer……}

    public class MyMethodOptions


       public MyMethodDisplayOptions DisplayOptions { get…. }

       public ExportTo ExportTo { get …. }


    The goal is to avoid having a method incredibly long parameter lists. It doesn’t read well, code doesn’t look smooth.

    It may take some effort to define the parameter support objects, but it is very readable. It also offers the possibility to embed intelligence into the options classes, where they can adjust options when other options are specified. (Mutual exclusiveness can be enforced etc.) Even exceptions can be raised by the options classes.

    So… in the end, there’s no "best" way by itself. I use all three ways of specifying options. It’s just a matter of picking the *right* way for a given situation.

    The thing to do is to determine how you can keep the method parameter lists short. Where option names, enums or classes are self-explanatory.

    Happy coding 🙂

  47. Jim T says:

    This is another vote for method objects, although the technique is a little obscure at the moment it’s got a lot going for it in terms of discoverability, readability & flexibility.

    That said, it does take a lot to setup, so unless they’re really needed, I’d go with named parameters if they’re available – although no projects I’m on can use them at the moment.

  48. Michael Lang says:

    How about the move method to another class refactoring?  Create a separate renderer or view class for each domain entity / target output combination.

    public class UserTextStreamRenderer : UserRenderer


      public User UserData {get;set;}

      public bool ShowEmail {get;set}

      public bool ShowPhone {get;set}

      //other options…

      public TextWriter TargetStream {get; set;}

      public override void Render(){Render(TargetStream);}

      public void Render(TextWriter stream);


    public abstract class UserRenderer


      public abstract void Render();


  49. Michael Lang says:

    To clarify, I would only use the separate renderer class as I proposed if there were many rendering options.  In the case of two options I’d probably use separate methods, but they would be named based on the purpose of the rendering rather than list the fields that get rendered in the method name.

    more things to do in the code snippet I posted…

    1) move common options/properties to the base UserRenderer (out of UserTextStreamRenderer).

    2) Add an IsValid() method. based on the application this method may return a collection of validation messages instead of a simple bool.

    3) if applicable, the render method should throw an exception if render is called with invalid options because the caller should have verified options with IsValid before calling render.

    I have not used this pattern before, but only because I really have not had the need for many options to control a single method.  I’d be interested to see an example where this was actually required in a real world application.