You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Right now, to create a new process, you have to give it a name, which sometimes takes focus away from the actuall shell command. Also, the method name wf.NewProc is a bit technical.
We could add an alternative, wf.Shell(), that just takes the shell command as parameter, and auto-generates a name, to make simpler workflows more fluent to write. One could still give a name with wf.Name = "some-name", and we could retain wf.NewProc() for compatibility.
So, this:
proc:=wf.NewProc("proc", "echo hi > {o:hi}")
proc.SetOut("hi", "hi.txt")
... would become this:
proc:=wf.Shell("echo hi > {o:hi}")
proc.SetOut("hi", "hi.txt")
Together with the suggestion in #123, the total would be:
proc:=wf.Shell("echo hi > {o:hi:hi.txt}")
We would also then probably do something similar for inline-Go-function based processes:
Right now, to create a new process, you have to give it a name, which sometimes takes focus away from the actuall shell command. Also, the method name
wf.NewProc
is a bit technical.We could add an alternative,
wf.Shell()
, that just takes the shell command as parameter, and auto-generates a name, to make simpler workflows more fluent to write. One could still give a name withwf.Name = "some-name"
, and we could retainwf.NewProc()
for compatibility.So, this:
... would become this:
Together with the suggestion in #123, the total would be:
We would also then probably do something similar for inline-Go-function based processes:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: