For use$ since svelte is never going to support actions for components, i designed something that reminds React hooks that will in some ways replace this feature.

@monkeythedev can your work be used already? I would suggest not yet, i'm still doing core changes every day

But seriously, give snowpack a read to understand the benefits of leaning on standard esm imports, allowing you to avoid a bundling process entirely.

I don't need to support non-esm browsers for most projects and I really like the idea of a super light build process. By removing the complexity of configuration and the overhead of bundling, svelvet makes the development process an optimal experience for myself and hopefully others

It replaces heavier, more complex bundlers like webpack or Parcel in your development workflow.

Allowing parent layer metadata to be saved for a layer, regardless if the parent layer is in the save command, would be a huge win for those of us working on CI/remote systems. Reusing parent layers used to be ridiculously easy. It would be good if we could get some comparably easy way to do it now.

Broadly speaking, modularity is the degree to which a system's components may be separated and recombined, often with the benefit of flexibility and variety in use.

How about renaming this to something more meaningful:

I have a component, and want to let the user specify what HTML tags wrap certain text rendered by the component. So the component user can say use <b></b> or <h1></h1> etc.

You can add actions to the components with use={[Action1, [Action2, action2Props], Action3]}.

The rule is written @forward "<url>". It loads the module at the given URL just like @use, but it makes the public members of the loaded module available to users of your module as though they were defined directly in your module. Those members aren’t available in your module, though—if you want that, you’ll need to write a @use rule as well.

The file is only imported once, no matter how many times you @use it in a project.

The new @use is similar to @import. but has some notable differences:

In brief, @import is being replaced with more explicit @use and @forward rules. Over the next few years Sass @import will be deprecated, and then removed.

use: [] - An array of actions and/or action/property arrays.

Since 'using decorators' has come to mean 'smothering your code in @ symbols' it's probably no longer a great name.

The success of JSX has proved that the second curly is unnecessary. Moreover, a lot of people — particularly those who have been exposed to React — have a visceral negative reaction to double curlies, many of them assuming that it brings with it all the limitations of crusty old languages like Mustache and Handlebars, where you can't use arbitrary JavaScript in expressions.

Please raise an issue if your use case is not theoretical.

Ok, I have seen that there are lot of built-in and third party validations, but sooner or later I will face a validation rule not covered by this buffet. Can I build a custom one? Of course you can!

Library author here. I'm always fascinated by new ways people can invalidate my assumptions. I mean that in a sincerely positive way, as it results in learning.

As I said above, the intervening time matters in my use case. The value can become invalid after a while, so I want to make sure that it gets checked just before it's submitted.

This is for a time picker. If you're picking times for today, you may pick a time that is 15 minutes from now. It's valid now because it's currently in the future. If you don't touch the form for the next 20 minutes then click submit, the submission should be prevented because your selected time is now 5 minutes in the past.

Well. I also recall that people complained about this when I did it in redux-form, which resulted in a persistentSubmitErrors config parameter.

In other words, I do not want an error to appear/disappear as a user types the text that swaps it from invalid to valid.

These are fine and do not cause any issues.

Intercepting proxies are commonly used in businesses to enforce acceptable use policy, and to ease administrative overheads since no client browser configuration is required.

That is certainly a good use-case. One thing you can do is to require something other than a user-chosen string as a username, something like an email address, which should be unique. Another thing you could do, and I admit this is not user-friendly at all, to let them sign up with that user name, but send the user an email letting them know that the username is already used. It still indicates a valid username, but adds a lot of overhead to the process of enumeration.

you are granting us the right to use your User Content without the obligation to pay royalties to any third party

You or the owner of your User Content still own the copyright in User Content sent to us, but by submitting User Content via the Services, you hereby grant us an unconditional irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully transferable, perpetual worldwide licence to use, modify, adapt, reproduce, make derivative works of, publish and/or transmit, and/or distribute and to authorise other users of the Services and other third-parties to view, access, use, download, modify, adapt, reproduce, make derivative works of, publish and/or transmit your User Content in any format and on any platform, either now known or hereinafter invented.

Wondering how to get field state from multiple fields at once? People coming from Redux-Form might be wondering where the equivalent of Redux Form's Fields component is, as a way to get state from several fields at once. The answer is that it's not included in the library because it's so easy to write one recursively composing Field components together.

Listening for External Changes By wrapping a stateful ExternalModificationDetector component in a Field component, we can listen for changes to a field's value, and by knowing whether or not the field is active, deduce when a field's value changes due to external influences.

Looks like the problem is that debounce defaults to waiting for 0 ms ... which is completely useless!

Polyfills are great for methods like String.prototype.trim because they allow you to use the methods on String instances.

Not all application state belongs inside your application's component hierarchy. Sometimes, you'll have values that need to be accessed by multiple unrelated components, or by a regular JavaScript module.

I used a self made (for the experience) rule based sytem with the Svelte use:action element directive. FI: <input .. use:valid={prop, 'mandatory'}....>

However, in function components there really isn't much need for this pattern since you can just use JS default arguments

By default all content inside template strings is escaped. This is great for strings, but not ideal if you want to insert HTML that's been returned from another function (for example: a markdown renderer). Use nanohtml/raw for to interpolate HTML directly.

ECMAScript 6th Edition (ECMA-262) introduces template literals which are intended to be used for embedding DSL in ECMAScript.

I suppose it all comes down to tooling. It should be easy to author a pattern. A set of implicit (possibly explicit) patterns to author patterns may be useful.

if we create a new branch or scope for some corner cases, we should have full features of a component without creating a new file

This seems crucial, for example for #if inside #each {#each boxes as box} {@const b = box?.a?.b} {#if b} <p>{b}</p> {/if} {/each}

but this RFC addresses a significant pain point I've had with {#each} blocks doing data visualization and graphics.

I'm suggesting there should be a way to write lifecycle related code that also responds to changing props, like how useEffect works. I think how React handles this could be a good source of inspiration.

Sometimes, you may be tempted to write that wrapper. Because all your (React or Vue or insert your reactive framework here) instincts tell you so.Resist the temptation. There is a better way. A svelter way. Introducing: the use-directive (a.k.a. “actions”).

I started Solid years ago before I thought anyone would be interested in using it. I only started promoting it because it had already achieved the goals I had set out for it.

Always fascinated to discover a use case I'd never have considered.

An action used on anchor tags to navigate around the application.

In my opinion, because Webpack was one of the first bundlers, is heavily packed with features, and has to support swathes of legacy code and legacy module systems, it can make configuring Webpack cumbersome and challenging to use. Over the years, I’ve written package managers, compilers, and bundlers, and I still find configuring Webpack to be messy and unintuitive.

But this is only a halfway decent way to clarify that this is an external dependency, because the only way to resolve a peer dependency warning is to install react from npm—there's no way to notify npm that you resolve the dependency to a browser global. So peer dependencies should be avoided in favor of external declarations. Then Rollup will take care of warning about "unresolved dependencies", even if external declarations can't express a particular version range with which your library is compatible like peer dependencies can.

Svelte will not offer a generic way to support style customizing via contextual class overrides (as we'd do it in plain HTML). Instead we'll invent something new that is entirely different. If a child component is provided and does not anticipate some contextual usage scenario (style wise) you'd need to copy it or hack around that via :global hacks.

Explicit interfaces are preferable, even if it places greater demand on library authors to design both their components and their style interfaces with these things in mind.

I think this is being rejected on grounds that are too arbitrary, and detract from what to me are the best things about Svelte -- it's fun and easy to use, and lets you write components in a way that's natural and expressive.

This has already forced me to forgo Svelte Material because I would like to add some actions to their components but I cannot and it does not make sense for them to cater to my specific use-case by baking random stuff into the library used by everyone.

The point of the feature is to not rely on the third-party author of the child component to add a prop for every action under the sun. Rather, they could just mark a recipient for actions on the component (assuming there is a viable target element), and then consumers of the library could extend the component using whatever actions they desire.

They don't need to add a prop for every action. The action itself can be passed in as a prop. <script> export let action; </script> <div use:action>whatever</div> The argument for the action can be another prop or can be part of the same prop.

Your tooltip component will have to wrap your image with a span tag or something, it can’t just add events to its children. And if you are adding multiple actions to it you will have to wrap it multiple times.

<Concern1> <Concern2> </Concern2> </Concern1>

vs.

<img use:concern1 use:concern2>

Lets not extend the framework with yet another syntax

Your LazyLoad image is now inextensible. What if you want to add a class? Perhaps the author of LazyLoad thought of that and sets className onto the <img>. But will the author consider everything? Perhaps if we get {...state} attributes.

I totally get not wanting to extend the syntax. I tried doing these things and in practice it was not easy or pretty. Actions provide a much cleaner and easier way to accomplish a certain set of functionality that would be much more difficult without it.

Why not just do something like this?

I'm still confused about the need for this, so at the expense of continuing to be that obnoxious kid at the playground, I'm going to stick my neck out again.

Devil's advocate: I'm not convinced the functionalities you list can't already be done within the JS of the component. Example: autofocus can simply be done w/ a method or oncreate.

I have created an action for form validation and its really working well

I'm just pushing on the "is this really a good idea" front

Drag and drop might be done better with hooks than components.

This can and should be done with other components, IMHO.

I'm a lot softer on this feature now - I'm starting to believe that every single use case that you would use a hook for, you could/should use a component for.

Any reason adding bind:foo to the <Outer/> element doesn't work for this case?

A function that takes the value from the input and name of the field and converts the value into the value you want stored as this field's value in the form. Common usecases include converting strings into Numbers or parsing localized dates into actual javascript Date objects.

Svelte:element as proposed here would nicely fit my use case and avoid some otherwise pretty ugly conditions I'll need to bake into Lists.svelte.

Maybe good for some cases but not a general solution for this I think.

Your solution is a very basic. The case above is more complex because using your solution you can't manipulate with fetched data outside of template and even outside {#await / } tag. So, if you need a read-only solution it's good but otherwise, it won't help you.

The language should work for developers, not the other way around.

GitHub Issues are preferred for discussion of this specification.

The code is short and simple, if you have specific needs you will probably be better off writing something custom for your application.

async function onEdit() { editing = true // enter editing mode await tick() nameEl.focus() }

The hype is something common in our industry. Remember NoSQL? Or when everyone went crazy over microservices? Or the AI / Machine learning burst? The list goes on and on. People get excited about new and breakthrough technologies and ideas.

The idea of having to learn something new is good, and I agree with that, but how often should you do that? Looking at the world of JavaScript, a new idea, blog post, library, framework, and whatnot pops up very often. Things become trending, and people quickly try to adopt that. I’m not saying you should not adopt new things and consider different approaches to a solution, not at all! I am trying to propose the idea of doing that less often.

I don't doubt that we will soon treat the process of logging in as a figurative point of entry, meaning that log into will make full conceptual sense (cf you don't physically delve into a problem or pile into an argument, yet both are correct grammatically because they are semantically [i.e. figuratively])

New information that would be useful toward the future usage or troubleshooting of GitLab should not be written directly in a forum or other messaging system, but added to a docs MR and then referenced, as described above.

When you encounter new information not available in GitLab’s documentation (for example, when working on a support case or testing a feature), your first step should be to create a merge request (MR) to add this information to the docs. You can then share the MR in order to communicate this information.

More information about limitations and exceptions to copyright

The above errors can be resolved by simply adding the ⚡attribute to the <html> tag like so: <html ⚡ lang="en">

The controller informs customers that they havethe possibility to withdraw consent. To do this, they could contact a call centre on business daysbetween 8am and 5pm, free of charge. The controller in this example doesnotcomply with article 7(3)of the GDPR. Withdrawing consent in this case requires a telephone call during business hours, this ismore burdensome than the one mouse-click needed for giving consent through the online ticketvendor, which is open 24/7.

As mentioned earlier in these guidelines, it is very important that controllers assess the purposes forwhich data is actually processed and the lawful grounds on which it is based prior to collecting thedata. Often companies need personal data for several purposes, and the processing is based on morethan one lawful basis, e.g. customer data may be based on contract and consent. Hence, a withdrawalof consent does not mean a controller must erase data that are processed for a purpose that is basedon the performance of the contract with the data subject. Controllers should therefore be clear fromthe outset about which purpose applies to each element of data and which lawful basis is being reliedupon.

Also,mechanisms for data subjects to withdraw their consent easily must be available and informationabout how to withdraw consent must be provided.

<html ⚡>

⚡4email

If you're having to look at GitHub, it seems like you didn't find a situation yourself where the requested feature would make you happier. I would advice you not to attempt to find use cases beforehand, just let them find you.

Ultimately though, I'd say the file structure that makes the most sense for your i18n workflow is the best one.

So, which is better? t.inspect # => "2007-11-01 15:25:00 8483885939586761/68719476736000000 UTC" t.inspect # => "2007-11-01 15:25:00.123456789000000004307366907596588134765625 UTC"

Matz, alas, I cannot offer one. You see, Ruby--coding generally--is just a hobby for me. I spend a fair bit of time answering Ruby questions on SO and would have reached for this method on many occasions had it been available. Perhaps readers with development experience (everybody but me?) could reflect on whether this method would have been useful in projects they've worked on.

the overloaded operators ¬, =, ≠, and abs are defined

Most of Algol's "special" characters (⊂, ≡, ␣, ×, ÷, ≤, ≥, ≠, ¬, ⊃, ≡, ∨, ∧, →, ↓, ↑, ⌊, ⌈, ⎩, ⎧, ⊥, ⏨, ¢, ○ and □) can be found on the IBM 2741 keyboard with the APL "golf-ball" print head inserted; these became available in the mid-1960s while ALGOL 68 was being drafted. These characters are also part of the Unicode standard and most of them are available in several popular fonts.

By extension, a situation in which problems continue to arise faster than one is able to solve or cope with them, resulting in piecemeal, incomplete, or temporary results.

According to our understanding of the inconsistencies, the feature was likely trying to support too many edge cases. All caching strategies have weaknesses and eventually break down if the usage is not properly scoped.