[elm-discuss] Correctly Integrate Elm with Template Engine Backend
Hi, i have a backend service that I wrote in Golang, something like this:
func PageA_RequestHandler(ctx *W.Context) {
// init things
if is_ajax {
// handle the API request, render the JSON
return
}
// query the initial rows
values := M.SX{
`rows`: model1.GetRows(10),
}
// render the html
ctx.Render(`page_a_template`,values)
}
then the template file `page_a_template.html` (that loaded at the first
time it rendered), is a html file, with content something like this:
var rows = {/* rows */};
new GridBuilder('grid',rows);
Where's:
{/* rows */} is my javascript-friendly template syntax, there are some
other syntax like: [/* foo */] or /*! bar */ or #{yay}
new GridBuilder is my custom javascript component that creates something
like datatables.net or editablegrid.net
The question is, if I use Elm, what's the correct way to inject the {/*
rows */} into the compiled html?
--
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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[elm-discuss] Re: Is Elm weekly still up?
Nice! Thank you! 8-) -- 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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Divide by zero?
On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:43:49 AM UTC, Jakub Hampl wrote: > > If you have such a case where correctness is much more important than > ergonomics, nothing is stopping you from creating your own type that > performs maths safely and using it through out your app. > > For many apps the ergonomic impact of that would be too large, so this is > not done. > Fair enough. I had a look in the github issues and divide by zero and some other mathematical quirks are already there. These issues are inherited from javascript. -- 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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Divide by zero?
If you have such a case where correctness is much more important than ergonomics, nothing is stopping you from creating your own type that performs maths safely and using it through out your app. For many apps the ergonomic impact of that would be too large, so this is not done. On Tuesday, 21 February 2017 11:22:54 UTC, Rupert Smith wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 2:19:33 AM UTC, Max Goldstein wrote: >> >> I don't think anyone likes that 2 // 0 == 0, but no one has a better >> idea. >> > > I have a better idea. Make it a runtime error and halt the program. > -- 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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [elm-discuss] Re: Divide by zero?
On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 2:19:33 AM UTC, Max Goldstein wrote: > > I don't think anyone likes that 2 // 0 == 0, but no one has a better idea. > I have a better idea. Make it a runtime error and halt the program. -- 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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [elm-discuss] Is type inference in Elm fully decideable?
On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 2:16:55 AM UTC, Max Goldstein wrote:
>
> Records can still be useful in union types if you have more than a few
> fields, or multiple fields of the same type. Often you write a function
> that updates a record by looking at a select few fields and it never needs
> to know about others. Occasionally you will have multiple records of this
> sort. So you can pipe the different records in different cases to the same
> function to handle that part of the update, and then other logic to handle
> whatever else needs to happen.
>
Yes, I think that is what I was trying to say with "except for the simple
case where you want to write a function that projects the fields of a
record onto a sub set". It is handy to be able to write a function like
this:
justNeedSomeFields { field1, field2 } = ..
and for the compiler to accept that function in all the obvious places that
it should be allowed.
Beyond that though, I don't see extensible records as being of any use at
all. In particular declarations like this:
type alias WithPosition = { a | rect: Rectangle, yOffset: Float }
are just leading to problems and making things harder than they should be.
--
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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
