This caught me out the other day too, so if it's not going to be added on a whim it could at least be noted as a limitation. Particularly seeing as the error message gives a URL to a doc page ... which has no mention of this. Triggering an action in JS that takes no parameters seems like a valid use case though.
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:11:50 PM UTC+10, Max Goldstein wrote: > > This is not about subscribers, it's for sending out to the JavaScript. >> > > A "subscriber" is the name of the JS function that handles the value sent > from Elm. As in, app.ports.fetch.subscribe. But yes, it's not about > *subscriptions*. Maybe we need a name change... > > I don't think it's a bug so much as an unsupported feature. Subscribers > always get passed a value, and you need to send that value from Elm. You > can write your JS functions to ignore the argument, but it needs to be done > in Elm nonetheless. > > Mind you, I don't think allowing ports as commands with no arguments would > be a bad change, but it's not going to be added on a whim. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
