-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 395
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
No support for ARC-style @property qualifiers #63
Comments
Hey Adam, Thanks for the forks! Awesome. The ideal would be able to pass arbitrary command-line options through to the template itself. I'm thinking something like The main set of templates would be enhanced to look for an I've never used MiscMerge's engine contexts yet, so there may be dragons there. But it seems like just what we need for this feature. |
I agree, that sounds like a far better solution, especially in the long term. I'll take a look and see what I can do! |
And it looks like we have a potential solution. [https://github.com/extremeboredom/mogenerator/tree/template_arguments](Template Arguments Branch) The command line parser can now optionally pick up key=value type arguments. It sets them as a key path on the target, so So the template vars get set into an I think that pretty much covers it, shall I set up a Pull Request? |
Awesome, that's exactly what I wanted! :-) Go ahead and toss me a pull request |
ARC uses different
@property
qualifiers than non-ARC code. Of specific note to mogenerator is the use ofstrong
instead ofretain
. For projects using ARC it would be nice to have the generated header files use the new qualifiers.To that end, I though of a couple of possibilities and put them together.
With a new custom template
With an --arc argument
I prefer the utility of the --arc argument, but the implementation feels a little hacky. From what I could see, the only way to actually pass things through to the template level was to add methods on the entity/relationship categories, requiring me to also add a global (as with the custom base class option). Perhaps there is something I am missing.
If you're happy with one or the other solutions then let me know and I'll set up an appropriate Pull Request. Alternatively, let me know if you know of some better solution that I could implement instead.
Cheers,
Adam.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: