Closed ddengler closed 8 years ago
@ddengler It's great to have the flexibility. On the other hand, limiting the option to ADD_DEPENDENCY makes the usage easier to understand. It's a trade off between flexibility and ease of use.
Would you give me examples for what you are going to use the flexibility?
(My opinion is still neutral. I want to know what kind of things can be achieved with the flexibility💪)
@yoichitgy From the top of my head: preprocessor macros or some typedefs or whatever else a user might need in the header I cannot think of right now :)
And a user does not have to learn the ADD_DEPENDENCY syntax and can just write / copy&paste what he is already used to
@ddengler Thanks for the answers. Let me take time to think. @Lutzifer What do you think?
@ddengler @yoichitgy I would propose a general ADD_HEADER command. Simply using comments for it takes away the possibility to use comments for anything else.
I think Lutzifer's idea ADD_HEADER is good.
@Lutzifer Do you mean we are going to support only ADD_HEADER? Or will you support ADD_DEPENDENCY too?
I would only allow AD_HEADER, so
# ADD_DEPENDENCY Keychain
becomes
# ADD_HEADER import "Keychain"
@Lutzifer I agree, thanks for the clarification.
@ddengler What do you think about @Lutzifer's idea?
the https://github.com/Swinject/Swinject-CodeGen/tree/example_add_header has a prototype implementation of this
Rails uses in something like the following
# some comment
for regular comments
#= import "Keychain"
for code to be inserted
Basically the same but a lot shorter
i like that
So do I. Let's use #=
to add a header part.
fixed by #55
@Lutzifer I would suggest to replace this with a simple comment block allowing any text to be placed as code in the resulting header instead of explicitly defining dependencies. This would be a lot more flexible. What do you think?