[Enhancement] *Multi*dict #1
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
github-actions
bot
added
documentation
780nm
force-pushed
the
multibank-autocorrect
branch
2 times, most recently
from
88d04fc
to
b1a83d2
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Expanding on your idea, by implementing logic to actually have multiple dictionaries, instead of 2 of them.
Everything gets merged into a single file, where the "global" configuration (formerly
#define's) are now arrays having per-dict information.This way we:
#ifdef MULTIBANKchecks (code is the same regardless of the user having 1 dict or 8 of them)#define's with conditional values__has_include()hell. There will always be a single fileqmk generate-autocorrect-data file0 file1 file2(instead of having different commands for each)Note: Maybe should have used 2 out of the 3 bits that were left unused, such that last one could be used for some other boolean, no idea what QMK contributors will think about that.