standardise Commander exports usage #1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
BREAKING: this removes the `Commander` export from `lib/main.js`.
ZaLiTHkA
force-pushed
the
feat/improve-commander-integration
branch
from
ef9a844 to
1ef0a73
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
NOTE: I know this is still in "major version zero" days here, but I just couldn't resist.. technically this does impose an "API breaking change", simply because it removes the
Commanderexport fromlib/main.js.with that said, as per Commander.js's own exports,
cli.Commanderandcli.programwere actually the same thing anyway.at the same time, this commit introduces access to the
Commandclass exported by Commander.js, which makes it much easier to split up Command app logic into different files. readme updated with an example to match.@basedwon do you have any problem with this..? not sure if you have any particular preference regarding the structure of the example, that's just how I would have written that snippet.