Entt: Proposal for registry::any<>

[alanjfs]

As mentioned in chat, there might be an opportunity for the API to save a few characters from being typed, by introducing a any to the registry.

Before

if (_registry.has<Selected>(entity) ||
    _registry.has<SelectedByParent>(entity) ||
    _registry.has<SelectedByChild>(entity))
{
  flags |= ImGuiTreeNodeFlags_Selected;
}

After

if (_registry.any<Selected, SelectedByParent, SelectedByChild>(entity) {
  flags |= ImGuiTreeNodeFlags_Selected;
}

[skypjack]

What about the following instead?

registry.has<A, B>(entity, entt::any<C, D>);

That is: entity has both A and B and any of C and D.
This could make possible more complex queries like the one above.
Your case becomes:

registry.has<>(entity, entt::any<Selected, SelectedByParent, SelectedByChild>);

[alanjfs]

That could work, but I'm not a fan of how it reads.

1. registry, has.. what?
2. In this entity
3. Any of <these>
4. Do something

Now .has<> is noise, and the other entt:: is more noise. You would have to have read it a few times to understand its meaning. As opposed to..

1. registry, any of these
2. Do something

Which isn't as clear as registry.has<> which is almost English, but closer. My picks would be, in this order:

1. registry.any<A, B>(entity)
2. registry.has<A, B>(entity, entt::any)

[skypjack]

Just to be sure, are you suggesting to implement both of them or just the first one from your list?

[alanjfs]

That's up to you, I meant either one or the other, with more preference to the first.

[skypjack]

I added registry::any, it was actually easier to read and to work with.
I'll push it upstream soon, most likely tomorrow since I'm out of home today. :+1: