How should we represent argument types? #3

Activity

1. patriksvensson

   changed the title [-]How should we represent types?[/-] [+]How should we represent argument types?[/+] on Jun 28, 2025
2. AllanOricil commented on Jul 8, 2025

   

   AllanOricil

   on Jul 8, 2025

   Last edited by AllanOricil

   More actions

   @mdonnalley this could be useful to ease the usage of CLIs built with oclif by AI agents. You can help defining the standard using oclif's well rounded model. Then you can create @oclif/plugin-opencli
3. cristiand391 commented on Jul 8, 2025

   

   cristiand391

   on Jul 8, 2025

   More actions

   @AllanOricil answered here: oclif/oclif#1806 (comment)
4. xoofx commented on Jul 9, 2025

   

   xoofx

   on Jul 9, 2025

   More actions

   Love the initiative! 🤗

   It would be quite valuable to support argument types to automate parsing from the specs to a strongly typed language.

   I would think that having a default string type and then provide support for:

   • some basic primitive types: bool, i8, u8, i16, u16, i32, u32, i64, u64, f32, f64
   • some common structured types: guid, datetime, url...

   In case of list arguments e.g. separated by , with primitive/structured types, using vec<i32> with only one level for now would be enough. (e.g. no vec<vec<xyx>>)

   Should cover most of the usecases and things can be expanded further in minor versions.
5. spectreconsole

   locked and limited conversation to collaborators on Jul 9, 2025
6. patriksvensson

   converted this issue into a discussion #11 on Jul 9, 2025