Syntax highlighting file for vim or neovim for Arma's SQF script syntax
A program for querying and modifying information in a datalog-like format backed by SQLite.
A small exercise passing file descriptors between processes using SCM_RIGHTS.
60 Player Co-Op Dynamic War Sandbox for Arma 3
A better tiling and dynamic window manager
webshit to push button & roll dice 🎲 see also https://sr.ht/~sqwishy/super-dicey-die-roller/
The systemd System and Service Manager
Forwards messages from the journal to other hosts over the network using syslog format RFC 5424
gdscript syntax file for vim
I made a snippet to reproduce the issue and Peter on elmlang.slack.com made an Ellie for it so it's easy to see and play around with.
comment created time in a month
I don't want nodes that failed the condition to end up in the document at all.
I spend some time trying to figure out what the behaviour is for
for="data.variant" to see if that's closer to what I want but it's pretty freaky.
- If the
variantproperty is null or undefined or whatever then the node is rendered using data from a previous item in the view/store thing -- so
for="data.variant || "kind of works but I don't know what side effects that has.
- Extra nesting is required between nodes using
forand your template when you have multiple nodes using
foreven if you only want one of them to pass. In the following, the
for="data.bar || "is never evaluated, even if the first
fordoes not produce any nodes.
<template id="does-not-work"> <div for="data.foo || "></div> <div for="data.bar || "></div> </template>
I also don't know how it might affect refreshing. I'm pretty discouraged by this so I'm probably not going to spend any more time on it.
comment created time in 2 months
Is there a workaround for this?
comment created time in 2 months
Hi. I noticed that if I had a sequence of keyed items and, in an update, more than one element was inserted at the start of the sequence, the existing dom nodes would be removed and readded by the vdom diff/patch thing.
That is; if my keys are ...
... and after an update they become ...
["bar0", "bar1", "foo0", "foo1"]
Then the nodes for
"foo1" will be removed and reinserted into a new fragment or something. They end up losing any state they had such as text selection and animation state. I would expect instead that the patch just insert
"bar1" into foo's parent. (This is the behaviour when items are appended, so if the two bars came after the two foos instead of before.)
Also, this does not happen if there is only one item inserted at the beginning, since
_VirtualDom_diffKeyedKids seems to peek ahead one to check for this case explicitly.
I really believe the current behaviour is incorrect, even if it's more efficient or something somehow. Moreover, this behaviour makes Elm unsuitable for me to use for my project. And this saddens me greatly since I am quite fond of Elm.
Is there something that can be done about this? Either some escape hatch for me in my project so I can manage the dom modifications for these nodes explicitly? Or the possibility of changing the behaviour of
VirtualDom? I am open to helping in the implementation of a solution or any other way I can.
created time in 2 months
started time in 3 months