not the technology itself that will bring about the learning or solve pedagogic prob-lems in the language classroom, but rather the affordances of those technologies andtheir use and integration in a well-formulated curriculum

eachers’ digital litera-cies and their preparedness and motivation to introduce technology in their teachingwill largely impact on the extent to which technology-mediated TBLT will be viable asan innovation (Hubbard 2008)

The addition of new technologies to people’s lives is never neutral, as it affects them,their language, and their personal knowledge and relations (Crystal 2008; Jenkinset al. 2009; Walther 2012)

“digital natives”(Prensky 2001)

Warschauer has long warned, computerand information technology is no magic bullet and can be used to widen as much asto narrow social and educational gaps (Warschauer 2012

particularly newInternet-connected devices and digital technologies have become embedded in thelife and learning processes of many new generations of students (Baron 2004; Ito et al.2009)

Not trying to be presumptuous, but thought this proposal would be best served with a PR.

I have been doing different things w/ Ruby for a couple of years now and the only bad thing I can say about it is that it makes programming in other languages feel awfully burdensome. = )

There are two situations where an init-like process would be helpful for the container.

highly recommended that the resulting image be just one concern per container; predominantly this means just one process per container, so there is no need for a full init system

unevaluatedProperties is like additionalProperties, except that it can "see through" $ref and "see inside" allOf, anyOf, oneOf, if, then, else

I'm not sure if there's a reason why additionalProperties only looks at the sibling-level when checking allowed properties but IMHO this should be changed.

It's unfortunate that additionalProperties only takes the immediate, sibling-level properties into account

additionalProperties applies to all properties that are not accounted-for by properties or patternProperties in the immediate schema.

additionalProperties here applies to all properties, because there is no sibling-level properties entry - the one inside allOf does not count.

What I want is to use "additionalProperties: false" to validate a union of schemas, but it seems it isn't possible. I already tried with sevaral different combination, but I didn't make it works.

additionalProperties: false works on it, but not along with allOf, because only validate one schema or another.

You can use Danger to codify your team's norms, leaving humans to think about harder problems.

2 Use the 5-Step Process to Get What You Want Out of Life

Chapter 5: Demand, services and social aspects of mitigation

The intent of this specification and related tools is to expand the reach of development containers, allow the usage of containers by themselves or different orchestration technologies, and allow any tool to manage and create them.

The focus of the dev container specification is to describe how to enrich a container for the purposes of development, rather than acting as a multi-container orchestrator format.

It feels great to get an email from someone you care about. Or a newsletter you enjoy. Or an update from a service you like. That’s how email used to feel all the time.

Now email feels like a chore, rather than a joy. Something you fall behind on. Something you clear out, not cherish. Rather than delight in it, you deal with it.

HEY’s fresh approach transforms email into something you want to use, not something you’re forced to deal with.

En somme, les études sur la communication des élèves atteints d’autisme permettent de mettre en évidence l’importance d’un contexte riche en stimulations appropriées (sons et images), mais également une évidente « stabilité » de l’information à décoder, le suivi des émotions des personnages, le rôle de l’imitation dans les apprentissages. Ces résultats encouragent donc l’usage d’outils informatiques adéquats pour améliorer la communication sociale chez les enfants atteints d’autisme.

Nous allons montrer par une courte analyse de quelques études l’impact du travail éducatif informatisé dans l’apprentissage de la communication sociale chez des enfants atteints d’autisme.

In addition, Google designed Chromium to be easy and intuitive for users, which means they compromise on transparency and control of internal operations.

And on any given day, developing with Svelte and its reactive nature is simply a dream to use. You can tell Svelte to track state changes on practically anything using the $: directive. And it’s quite likely that your first reactive changes will produce all the expected UI results.

Ease of Use Write your model almost as you would on paper and Dynare will take care of the rest!

Update API usage of the view helpers by changing javascript_packs_with_chunks_tag and stylesheet_packs_with_chunks_tag to javascript_pack_tag and stylesheet_pack_tag. Ensure that your layouts and views will only have at most one call to javascript_pack_tag or stylesheet_pack_tag. You can now pass multiple bundles to these view helper methods.

You particular circumstances may or may not warrant a way different from what lhunath (and other users) deem "best practices".

These tests should only be used when: the functionality/component being tested is small the internal state of the objects/database needs to be tested it cannot be tested at a lower level

If you would like to make a code change, go ahead. Fork the repository, open a pull request. Do this early, and talk about the change you want to make. Maybe we can work together on it.

These example are for Rails applications, but there is no dependency on Rails for using this gem. Most of the examples are applicable to any Ruby application.

If you’re installing new sod, you may use a light roller to make sure the pieces come into close contact with soil for the roots to grow and take hold.

There are times when you may need to flatten a bumpy lawn. For example, a golf course or a cricket pitch may be rolled to attain a smooth, level surface for playing. This is when a lawn roller may be needed.

To make sure that participants couldn’t learn and predict where text field alternatives might show up during the test, we randomized the order in which we presented those text fields.

Not enjoying Xcode, Amir used RubyMotion instead. Amir had real-world experience with Xcode and Objective-C, but didn't like it at all. Amir also has a Ruby background and went with RubyMotion to build A Dark Room. The command-line interface, the testing framework, the gems libraries and the CocoaPods integration and the freedom to use any text editor contributed to his decision.

ProMotion is a RubyMotion gem that makes iOS development more like Ruby and less like Objective-C.

Just as we've become super-human thanks to telephones, calendars and socks, we can continue our evolution into cyborgs in a concrete jungle with socially curated bars and mathematically incorruptible governance.

we should eagerly anticipate granting ourselves the extra abilities afforded to us by Turing machines

Stop thinking of the ideal user as some sort of honorable, frontier pilgrim; a first-class citizen who carries precedence over the lowly bot. Bots need to be granted the same permission as human users and it’s counter-productive to even think of them as separate users. Your blind human users with screen-readers need to behave as “robots” sometimes and your robots sending you English status alerts need to behave as humans sometimes.

The codebase for Pomodone makes more sense to me in Svelte, not React. I find it easier to navigate and work with.

React and Svelte are very similar in many ways, but what I've found is that in all the little ways that they are different, I prefer Svelte.

This isn't really a downside to React; one of React's strengths is that it lets you control so much and slot React into your environment

Currently, I’m working on designing the interfaces and it’s real fun!

This could be an operation, a workflow, or hand-baked Ruby code completely unrelated to Trailblazer.

I would much rather have a "cosine" module than a "trigonometry" module because chances are good I only need a small fraction of the utilities provided by the larger trig module.

Small modules are extremely versatile and easy to compose together in an app with any number of other modules that suit your needs.

Second, I don't agree that there are too many small modules. In fact, I wish every common function existed as its own module. Even the maintainers of utility libraries like Underscore and Lodash have realized the benefits of modularity and allowed you to install individual utilities from their library as separate modules. From where I sit that seems like a smart move. Why should I import the entirety of Underscore just to use one function? Instead I'd rather see more "function suites" where a bunch of utilities are all published separately but under a namespace or some kind of common name prefix to make them easier to find. The way Underscore and Lodash have approached this issue is perfect. It gives consumers of their packages options and flexibility while still letting people like Dave import the whole entire library if that's what they really want to do.

To the consternation of some users, 3.x employed Unicode variable names such as λ, φ, τ and π for a concise representation of mathematical operations. A downside of this approach was that a SyntaxError would occur if you loaded the non-minified D3 using ISO-8859-1 instead of UTF-8. 3.x also used Unicode string literals, such as the SI-prefix µ for 1e-6. 4.0 uses only ASCII variable names and ASCII string literals (see rollup-plugin-ascii), avoiding encoding problems.

Normally you should not register a named module, but instead register as an anonymous module: define(function () {}); This allows users of your code to rename your library to a name suitable for their project layout. It also allows them to map your module to a dependency name that is used by other libraries.

Before a bug can be fixed, it has to be understood and reproduced. For every issue, a maintainer gets, they have to decipher what was supposed to happen and then spend minutes or hours piecing together their reproduction. Usually, they can’t get it right, so they have to ask for clarification. This back-and-forth process takes lots of energy and wastes everyone’s time. Instead, it’s better to provide an example app from the beginning. At the end of the day, would you rather maintainers spend their time making example apps or fixing issues?

It can also be included as individual modules, i.e. Hashie::Extensions::MethodReader, Hashie::Extensions::MethodWriter and Hashie::Extensions::MethodQuery.

This is my absolute favorite feature ever and the official reason for (re-)writing Trailblazer 2.1. It makes me happy every time I use it.

So, the sad conclusion is: all problems must be resolved individually depending on a specific usage context. There’s no silver bullet to resolve all ZeroDivisionErrors once and for all. And again, I am not even covering complex IO flows with retry policies and expotential timeouts.

However, you don’t need to have an extensive knowledge of monads to use ROP in your code.

It's hard to say why people think so because you certainly don't need to know category theory for using them, just like you don't need it for, say, using functions.

Feel free to pick and choose what you need for your applications.

The bare bones operation without any Trailblazery is implemented in the trailblazer-operation gem and can be used without our stack.

While Trailblazer offers you abstraction layers for all aspects of Ruby On Rails, it does not missionize you. Wherever you want, you may fall back to the "Rails Way" with fat models, monolithic controllers, global helpers, etc. This is not a bad thing, but allows you to step-wise introduce Trailblazer's encapsulation in your app without having to rewrite it.

Only use what you like.

you can pick which layers you want. Trailblazer doesn't impose technical implementations

No one has requested it before so it's certainly not something we're planning to add.

To give a little more context, structures like this often come up in my work when dealing with NoSQL datastores, especially ones that rely heavily on JSON, like Firebase, where a records unique ID isn't part of the record itself, just a key that points to it. I think most Ruby/Rails projects tend towards use cases where these sort of datastores aren't appropriate/necessary, so it makes sense that this wouldn't come up as quickly as other structures.

An additional usecase is where we would like to update multiple records

I apologize for the slow development of Reform after the "explosion" when I released it initially. The reason for this is I changed jobs and didn't use Reform (yet).

If components gain the slot attribute, then it would be possible to implement the proposed behavior of <svelte:fragment /> by creating a component that has a default slot with out any wrappers. However, I think it's still a good idea to add <svelte:fragment /> so everyone who encounters this common use case doesn't have to come up with their own slightly different solutions.

I wanted to use GitHub Gists which are a wonderfully low friction way of sharing code

A cleaner approach could be the use:action API.

Popper for Svelte with actions, no wrapper components or component bindings required! Other Popper libraries for Svelte (including the official @popperjs/svelte library) use a wrapper component that takes the required DOM elements as props. Not only does this require multiple bind:this, you also have to pollute your script tag with multiple DOM references. We can do better with Svelte actions!

One lesser-appreciated user-behaviour is when a user would like to choose an alternative download location. On a download link, your user can right-click -> “save link as…” and place the download directly into a folder of their choice. Handy if you want something to go directly to removable media, for example. On a download button, there’s no such option.

Jbuilder gives you a simple DSL for declaring JSON structures that beats manipulating giant hash structures. This is particularly helpful when the generation process is fraught with conditionals and loops.

People really don't stress enough the importance of enjoying what you're programming. It aids creativity, makes you a better teammate, and makes it significantly easier to enter a state of flow. It should be considered an important factor in choosing a web development framework (or lack thereof). Kudos!

# fix a bug in one of your dependencies vim node_modules/some-package/brokenFile.js # run patch-package to create a .patch file npx patch-package some-package

Making UIs with Svelte is a pleasure. Svelte’s aesthetics feel like a warm cozy blanket on the stormy web. This impacts everything — features, documentation, syntax, semantics, performance, framework internals, npm install size, the welcoming and helpful community attitude, and its collegial open development and RFCs — it all oozes good taste. Its API is tight, powerful, and good looking — I’d point to actions and stores to support this praise, but really, the whole is what feels so good. The aesthetics of underlying technologies have a way of leaking into the end user experience.

Better contribution workflow: We will be using GitHub’s contribution tools and features, essentially moving MDN from a Wiki model to a pull request (PR) model. This is so much better for contribution, allowing for intelligent linting, mass edits, and inclusion of MDN docs in whatever workflows you want to add it to (you can edit MDN source files directly in your favorite code editor).

I don't think this is what really matters at the end, since whatever is the implementation the goal should be to provide a library that people actually like to use.

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

How about renaming this to something more meaningful:

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

GitHub Issues are preferred for discussion of this specification.

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.

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.

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

⚡4email

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.

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.