Closed KraXen72 closed 1 month ago
I'll move this to a discussion as it's not our top priority to change the t function matcher. It would make more sense if people just aligned with the standard behavior or created a new matcher if that makes sense (e.g., complete other syntax).
If more people decide this would be helpful, we consider it again.:)
currently, it's hard-coded to
t
. Please add an entry toPluginOptions
to configure the t-function, so it properly replaces it when extracting using sherlock. I have attempted to make this modification myself, however, I couldn't get the plugin to build after running pnpm install (which took 24 minutes!) Thanks!