On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 9:37:54 PM UTC, Keith Lazuka wrote: > > One question you might or might not have asked yourself is whether the > encapsulation is worth it. Why should the `Period` state be hidden with an > opaque type? If you're writing a library, then, yes, it makes total sense > so that you can avoid having to make major version bumps as the library > evolves. But if this is an application-specific component which will only > ever be used *within* this project, then you might not need the > encapsulation. >
I have to agree. I have split out pieces of re-usable view code and made them re-usable by passing in 'tagger's for tagging the events, but I have only done this for bits of view that are being re-used in multiple situations - a set of 'ok/cancel' buttons might be a reasonable example. What I look for first is things that are not bound to the main Type of a module, and that a module does not need to expose. Recently I have been using some animations with elm-style-animation. I found that the animation styles and easings did not depend on the Model type for the module I was working with, and also are completely internal to it. So they were the first thing I moved into a separate file, purely to try and keep the main file shorter. -- 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.
