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
I think the rationale is that it's more common to generate doc somewhere to then publish it or commit it, while it's more uncommon to post-process this documentation directly on the command line. Most documentation tools I know needs to generate multiple HTML files anyway - and nickel could do the same -, which don't make much sense to print on stdout.
That being said, I think we currently don't even print a message to say "Written doc in ...". Would that help to add such an output? Also, what I said might not apply to outputting the doc as json, where it might be indeed common to pipe the output to something else. I'm not sure yet it would be a good idea to have a different default behavior depending on the format, though.
A message stating the path of the output file would certainly have alleviated my surprise.
I think it also wouldn't seem out of place in other automations like the generation of html docs like you describe :)
P.S.: Sorry for the late response – seem to have had some imap issues that went unnoticed; getting to the other issues now, too…
I was quite surprised that
nickel doc
by default wants to write it's output to a file (and accidentally commited one of those output files, even).I think it would make more sense for
nickel doc
to emit to stdout by default?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: