Allow user to pass in a type to use as the Output object #2

New Issue

torque · 2023-09-01T23:51:04-06:00

torque commented

2023-09-01 23:51:04 -06:00

This object simply needs to be a superset of the automatically generated Output object. Extra fields will be default-initialized or left undefined. I've found in practice that my command callbacks tend to be very thin wrappers around a method from a non-CLI-oriented module, which defines a type that maps to most or all of the CLI options.

Plus this would allow the user to have methods on the Output object, which might be nice.

This object simply needs to be a superset of the automatically generated `Output` object. Extra fields will be default-initialized or left `undefined`. I've found in practice that my command callbacks tend to be very thin wrappers around a method from a non-CLI-oriented module, which defines a type that maps to most or all of the CLI options. Plus this would allow the user to have methods on the Output object, which might be nice.

torque added this to the 0.1.0 milestone 2023-09-01 23:51:04 -06:00

torque added the

Kind/Enhancement

label 2023-09-01 23:51:04 -06:00

torque self-assigned this 2023-09-01 23:51:04 -06:00

torque referenced this issue

2023-11-12 12:45:31 -07:00

Fix the really stupid way the user context is handled. #7

torque referenced this issue

2024-09-11 00:46:28 -06:00

API Redesign #13

Sign in to join this conversation.