arrow

GH-36098: [MATLAB] Change C++ proxy constructors to accept an options struct instead of a cell array containing the arguments (#36108)



### Rationale for this change

It would be better if we passed an option struct to the C++ proxy constructors instead of a cell array containing the input arguments. If we pass in a struct, we can access the inputs by name. For example, if the NumericArray proxy class accepted an options struct with fields named `MatlabArray`, `Valid`, and `DeepCopy`, we could access the values like so in its `make` function:

```cpp
        static libmexclass::proxy::MakeResult make(const libmexclass::proxy::FunctionArguments& constructor_arguments) {
            ::matlab::data::StructArray opts = constructor_arguments[0];
            const ::matlab::data::TypedArray<CType> data_mda = opts[0]["MatlabArray"];
            const ::matlab::data::TypedArray<bool> valid_mda = opts[0]["Valid"];
            const ::matlab::data::TypedArray<bool> make_copy_mda = opts[0]["DeepCopy"];
    }
```

It's easier to reason about the code above than the code snippet below:

```cpp
        static libmexclass::proxy::MakeResult make(const libmexclass::proxy::FunctionArguments& constructor_arguments) {
            const ::matlab::data::TypedArray<CType> data_mda = constructor_arguments[0];
            const ::matlab::data::TypedArray<bool> valid_mda = constructor_arguments[1];
            const ::matlab::data::TypedArray<bool> make_copy_mda = constructor_arguments[2];
    }
```
Using options structs also enables us to support syntaxes at construction-time. We can query a field on the struct to determine which fields we should expect to be there. 

### What changes are included in this PR?

1. The `NumericArray` C++ proxy classes accepts a struct with the fields `MatlabArray`, `Valid`, and `DeepCopy` at construction time.
2. The `BooleanArray` C++ proxy class accepts a struct with the fields `MatlabArray` and `Valid` at construction-time.

### Are these changes tested?

Existing test cases cover these changes.

### Are there any user-facing changes?

No, these changes are not user-facing.

### Future Directions

In a followup PR, we plan on adding an `ArgumentParser` class. This would abstract out how you access fields on scalar `matlab::data::StructArray` objects. The `NumericArray` code would then look something like this:

```cpp
        static libmexclass::proxy::MakeResult make(const libmexclass::proxy::FunctionArguments& constructor_arguments) {
             ArgumentParser args{constructor_arguments[0]};
             const ::matlab::data::TypedArray<CType> data_mda = args["MatlabArray"];
             const ::matlab::data::TypedArray<bool> valid_mda = args["Valid"];
             const ::matlab::data::TypedArray<bool> make_copy_mda = args["DeepCopy"]; 
    }
```

### Notes

Thank you to @ kevingurney for all the help and the idea for the `ArgumentParser` class.

* Closes: #36098

Authored-by: Sarah Gilmore <sgilmore@mathworks.com>
Signed-off-by: Sutou Kouhei <kou@clear-code.com>