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.

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.

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.

State management is also easier. Instead of importing hooks and using setters, you just define a property within the script tags. You then change the value by re-assigning it (not mutating the original value).

But it’s impossible to argue with the value binding. You don’t have to worry about defining the value property and an onChange event for an input box in Svelte, bind:value does it all

As an engineer, it’s important to explore different technologies. It’s important to identify the tools available to tackle problems. And it’s important to expand your horizons because then you can look cool on your CV.

But it has as an external service several disadvantages which opposed the philosophy of static websites diametrically.

I ran in to what I thought was this issue, but I was using fragment caching. Since the partial was not executed again, the content_for was not called. content_for could be written differently to handle this.

Bad people will always be motivated to go the extra mile to do bad things.

Meanwhile, criminals would just continue to use widely available (but less convenient) software to jump through hoops and keep having encrypted conversations.

All Telegram apps are open sourced and the company itself is not for profit, however, their backend is not open source which has raised some eyebrows.

You want to execute SSH commands from the build environment to a remote server You want to rsync files from the build environment to a remote server If anything of the above rings a bell, then you most likely need an SSH key.

By putting our data in the corporate cloud, we are that kid. We are giving corporations and governments a way to see where we are looking towards, and they can predict our future and decide whether and how to intervene or subvert.

From a game theoretic standpoint, we’ve already lost. Too many of our civil society adversaries have too much of our data, and we have so little of theirs.

What I think we're lacking is proper tooling, or at least the knowledge of it. I don't know what most people use to write Git commits, but concepts like interactive staging, rebasing, squashing, and fixup commits are very daunting with Git on the CLI, unless you know really well what you're doing. We should do a better job at learning people how to use tools like Git Tower (to give just one example) to rewrite Git history, and to produce nice Git commits.

With a recognisable, ever present icon, user's can easily manage their consent at any time.

One of the GDPR's principles of data processing is storage limitation. You must not store personal data for longer than you need it in connection with a specified purpose.

they are processed by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity. Practically speaking, the only relevant exception is the latter: for instance, if you collect your friends’ personal data for your own personal phone-book you’re not bound to the GDPR.

That’s because the Google Translate extension uses some internal Google-only APIs (Mozilla also does the same thing).

What's terrible and dangerous is a faceless organization deciding to arbitrarily and silently control what I can and can not do with my browser on my computer. Orwell is screaming in his grave right now. This is no different than Mozilla deciding I don't get to visit Tulsi Gabbard's webpage because they don't like her politics, or I don't get to order car parts off amazon because they don't like hyundai, or I don't get to download mods for minecraft, or talk to certain people on facebook.

They don't have to host the extension on their website, but it's absolutely and utterly unacceptable for them to interfere with me choosing to come to github and install it.

I appreciate the vigilance, but it would be even better to actually publish a technical reasoning for why do you folks believe Firefox is above the device owner, and the root user, and why there should be no possibility through any means and configuration protections to enable users to run their own code in the release version of Firefox.

Apparently Firefox does have translation built-in, it's just not enabled due to lack of usage agreement / API keys. https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/a3eb8e502006

Thank you for letting me know about this move by Google. Definitely something to watch. While I agree with Google's position from an end user experience perspective, it unfortunately puts Firefox at a further disadvantage since Mozilla does not have its own language translation initiatives.

Whether it's "better" for your implementation is up for you to decide.

Marginalize provides a striking case of how thoroughly the figurative use of a word can take over the literal one.

Less than 1% of users in the world have Javascript turned off. So honestly, it's not worth anyones time accommodating for such a small audience when a large majority of websites rely on Javascript. Been developing websites for a very long time now, and 100% of my sites use Javascript and rely on it heavily. If users have Javascript turned off, that's their own problem and choice, not mine. They'll be unable to visit or use at least 90% of websites online with it turned off.

I don't think this is a common enough use case to warrant this change (which would need documentation and tests if it were to be accepted). Overall, the goal has been to simplify the validators, and prune out edge cases. This use case can be easily accomplished by just using a method instead.

As such, they're not in clear text and whilst I appreciate that will mean some use cases aren't feasible, protecting the individuals still using these passwords is the first priority.

There is a forum for discussing CommonMark; you should use it instead of github issues for questions and possibly open-ended discussions. Use the github issue tracker only for simple, clear, actionable issues.

This is a comic book about intellectual property law and the public domain: https://law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/digital/.

no need to learn a new framework it's just Ruby's syntax + new methods and actually that's one of the reasons Google invented a simple and stupid language called Golang instead of a magical one to prevent developers from doing magic and just shipping features instead of playing with DSLs.

You see entropy is information leaking. When it comes to passwords (and secure systems in general) you want to leak as little information as possible. Otherwise an attacker has information they can use to their advantage.

Download the billions of breached passwords and blacklist them all. Attackers have a copy; so should you.

This isn’t the first time Kerckhoffs’ Principle has come up. I specifically discussed it when talking about creating good, strong Master Passwords, when I said that we should use a system for coming up with Master Passwords that doesn’t lose its strength if the attacker knows the system that we used

Kerckhoffs’ Principle states that you should assume that your adversary knows as much about the system you use as you do. This is why – despite what I may have said on April Fools Day last year – security experts are skeptical of security systems that hide the details of how they operate. They are particularly skeptical of systems that derive their security from keeping the details of how they work secret. I could go on at great length about why openness about the system improves security. Indeed, my first draft of this article did go on at great length.

"the enemy knows the system"

"one ought to design systems under the assumption that the enemy will immediately gain full familiarity with them"

Now, if we think of the tasks that we perform throughout the day as consuming separate "bands" of time, then the term makes perfect sense. Being "out of bandwidth" would indicate that you do not have enough unallocated "bands of time" in your day to complete the task. Using the term bandwidth to describe time maps more closely (in my opinion) to the original definition, than the current definition describing data capacity does.

I may be living in a bubble, but my impression is that don't understand that figurative use of bandwidth are way out of the loop.

Well, as a home user, I also belong to an investment club with 10 members. I also have a medium size family who I like to send photo's to, and my son is on a soccer team. all those have greater than 5 people on the list. sooooooooo..... once again, the people with valid use of the internet have to 'deal' with those that abuse it.

How does HIBP handle "plus aliasing" in email addresses? Some people choose to create accounts using a pattern known as "plus aliasing" in their email addresses. This allows them to express their email address with an additional piece of data in the alias, usually reflecting the site they've signed up to such as test+netflix@example.com or test+amazon@example.com. There is presently a UserVoice suggestion requesting support of this pattern in HIBP. However, as explained in that suggestion, usage of plus aliasing is extremely rare, appearing in approximately only 0.03% of addresses loaded into HIBP. Vote for the suggestion and follow its progress if this feature is important to you.

minitest doesn't reinvent anything that ruby already provides, like: classes, modules, inheritance, methods. This means you only have to learn ruby to use minitest and all of your regular OO practices like extract-method refactorings still apply.