-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 307
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
Simplify call syntax: make 'input:' keyword optional #198
Comments
Sounds good to me. I don't have a problem with the commas though. |
Haven't we seen requests to jam other stuff in that block? If so, and if that happens, how does one discern the difference? |
@geoffjentry this thought was actually keyed off your recent comments about making WDL less complex. To me this is a classic case of WDL being needlessly picky about syntax to enable "future possibilities" at the cost of making WDL harder to write today. This keyword obviously isn't a big deal by itself and it's easy to tell you got it right in the IDE, but for a new author in a plaintext editor (and even me sometimes) (1) do I really need it (2) is it "input" or "inputs" (3) do I need a colon after it (4) is there some other section I'm supposed to be including |
@cjllanwarne Oh I totally get that, and things which reduce boilerplate are a good thing. This was more just a make sure it's thought through reminder than a disagreement. |
I like this idea. Especially making it optional to guard against future issues. workflow foo {
call a {
x = x_in,
y = y_in
} but if you needed any other blocks you would do: workflow foo {
call a {
input:
x = x_in,
y = y_in
some_other_block:
###
} also, not sure if this is the placae to bring it up, but why on earth is the input block so different then everything else?? why use semi-colons, and why have commas? (it honestly causes me more failed workflows then I care to admin): workflow foo {
call a {
input {
x = x_in
y = y_in
}
} |
In order of how much I'd benefit from it/be less irritated by it:
I prob wouldn't bother with skipping writing |
Addressed by #524 |
Today:
Proposal:
Commentary:
I'm sure there was once a grand vision making the
input:
keyword in a call section necessary, but it turns out it's mostly just noise and yet another thing to remember to get right.To avoid this needing a breaking change, I suggest we make the keyword optional and encourage people to not bother writing it.
Another potential simplification would be making the commas optional too, eg:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: