Skip to content
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

codekit prepend and append #30

Open
minimit opened this issue Oct 22, 2014 · 5 comments
Open

codekit prepend and append #30

minimit opened this issue Oct 22, 2014 · 5 comments

Comments

@minimit
Copy link

minimit commented Oct 22, 2014

Would be great if this could work with the codekit includes for compatibility! (https://incident57.com/codekit/help.html#javascript)

But it works a bit different, it can only append or prepend to the file and only once

// @codekit-prepend "someFile.js";
// @codekit-prepend "someFile.js", "../someOtherFile.js", "../scripts/thirdFile.js";

The're also used on many others software like codekit that support the same syntax (http://alphapixels.com/prepros/docs/js-concat-minify.html)

@andrewcroce
Copy link

+1 for this

@wiledal
Copy link
Owner

wiledal commented Jun 29, 2015

I think this slightly out of the scope of this plugin, which is to include at specified locations. There are separate gulp plugins for prepending and appending.

Might be adding //=prepend path/to/file.txt, and //=append path/to/file.txt to the nice-to-have list.

@andrewcroce
Copy link

I can see what you mean. I think the suggestion was more for codekit syntax compatibility, and less about the inclusion location. I have recently gotten in the habit of writing both // @codekit-prepend and //= require lines, duplicating my includes for each one. One just ignores the other, so it seems to be working fine.

@robsonsobral
Copy link

I agree. To have the syntax used by Codekit and Prepros whould be amazing for work on teams.

@KenEucker
Copy link
Collaborator

This is a nice to have that I think we can test for.

I realize this is an old issue for some, but if there is anyone who still wants this feature let us know. As mentioned in the proposed pull request (#31), we need tests created to handle the use cases that come with this feature and then we can move forward.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants