Yup. I’m another confused soul who found his answer here after the error message pointed to the docs that did not cover this limitation.
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 10:21:39 PM UTC+10, Tim Stewart wrote: > > 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.
