THANKS SO MUCH!!!!!

I don't know that whether its true that effects modules can't be published 
on elm-package - this one at least has no native code which I know to be a 
blocker.

But as we both noted, there are times when the TEA does not, and arguably 
cannot, provide a good developer experience. It is such a shame that 
effects modules are so frowned upon.




On Thursday, 20 April 2017 22:00:50 UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
>
> My comment is RE debouncing in particular.  I too have been frustrated to 
> see so many debouncing libraries.  The problem is that none of them are 
> great, because debouncing makes the most sense to solve as a managed 
> effect, rather than in user-space.  And, effect packages can't be published 
> afaik.  There are quite a few of this type out there on github.  The one 
> that we use to good effect is here: 
> https://github.com/tracker-common/elm-debouncer/blob/be3bd02ccac6b71b0088c08359b3f45b5ae7c4dc/src/Debouncer.elm
>  
> (sorry for the outstanding PR).  It provides an api very similar to 
> Task.attempt, but the task given to it will be debounced.  There are 
> similar ones that deal with Msg instead of tasks (
> https://github.com/unbounce/elm-debounce), but I like to keep my effects 
> in tasks as long as possible so I can chain/map them as needed before 
> sending them out.
>
> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 3:18:28 AM UTC-6, Simon wrote:
>>
>> First of all - 6 debouncing libraries! Would be great to see elm-package 
>> be able to surface github stars directly (or some other means of identify 
>> the most-likely-to-be-good library)
>>
>> My question though is the following. The type signature of a debounce 
>> state is DebounceState Msg. I.e. it needs the message type as that’s 
>> what it is going to send back later.
>>
>> But in a large app, I usually have the model in 1 file and import that 
>> into my update/view files and it is in the latter that I define the type 
>> Msg.
>>
>> I’m quickly going to get a singularity if I try to import my Msgs into 
>> my model.
>>
>> I’ve never separated out my Msgs before into a separate file but can see 
>> some other benefits. But there will also be costs too.
>>
>> So I was wondering 
>>
>>    - what other experiences people had had with separating out Msgs 
>>    - whether there was an alternative to this to handle the issue at 
>>    hand - debouncing (all of the examples in the libraries are tiny single 
>>    file ones inevitably) 
>>
>> ​
>>
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to