Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RFC Compiler options should be grouped under a thrift key #194

Closed
dantswain opened this issue Jan 25, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

RFC Compiler options should be grouped under a thrift key #194

dantswain opened this issue Jan 25, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@dantswain
Copy link
Collaborator

Right now thrift_files and thrift_output have to go right in the project config's root namespace. I think it would be cleaner if they were nested under a thrift key:

def project do
  # ..
  thrift: [
    thrift_files: Path.wildcard("thrift/*.thrift"),
    thrift_output: "gen-lib"
  ]
end

Doing this it might make sense to change the names of the parameters to not have a redundant "thrift_" prefix.

By way of prior art: This is the way dialyxir works, and it's fairly intuitive and unobtrusive.

@jparise
Copy link
Collaborator

jparise commented Jan 25, 2017

That's an interesting idea. I think there's prevent both ways (with the erl* and elixir* keys), but this could be a nice improvement.

I can look into this in a couple of weeks. It would be nice to hear any other thoughts in the interim.

@dantswain
Copy link
Collaborator Author

It looks like the changes would be pretty easy to make and I'd be glad to do it if we get agreement.

ExDoc also uses this approach (docs: []). Hex sort of uses this approach with the package: [] key.

@scohen
Copy link
Collaborator

scohen commented Jan 25, 2017

I'm a fan, as long as we don't stutter thrift: [files: ...] as opposed to thrift: [thrift_files:...]

@jparise
Copy link
Collaborator

jparise commented Jan 26, 2017

Implemented by #197

@jparise jparise closed this as completed Jan 26, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants