Thanks everyone! Hey Max! I appreciate the feedback, I've updated the readme with your suggestions ++ some additional notes.
And some additional descriptions for the elm-package documentation will be there later today :) You make a good point about renaming `Style.Model`, though I'm going to think about it for a bit. The recommendation is for style to live in its own file, so it might not be a big issue. On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:42:29 PM UTC-5, Max Goldstein wrote: > > Hi Matt! I looked at the documentation and these are my thoughts. > > > - The last example has the Title line twice. Copypasta? > - It looks like this only works well if Style is imported as a (..) > import. I think you make a good case for this usually-discouraged feature. > However, I think best practice would be to keep the stylesheet definitions > in their own module with no other (..) imports, and expose only the > rendered stylesheet and Class type. If you agree, maybe add this to the > README? > - You should document the types defined at the top of the > documentation. What the heck do these represent? Maybe there's a better > name for Model since that's normally something the application author > defines as part of TEA (The Elm Architecture). > - Maybe it would be helpful to see the rendered CSS for the > definitions in the README? > > Overall, great work! > -- 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.
