@webqit/subscript
Advanced tools
Comparing version 2.1.15 to 2.1.16
@@ -11,3 +11,3 @@ { | ||
"homepage": "https://webqit.io/tooling/subscript", | ||
"version": "2.1.15", | ||
"version": "2.1.16", | ||
"license": "MIT", | ||
@@ -14,0 +14,0 @@ "repository": { |
@@ -7,3 +7,3 @@ # Subscript Function Proposal | ||
+ [Introduction](#introduction) | ||
+ [Background](#background) | ||
+ [What We Propose](#what-we-propose) | ||
@@ -18,2 +18,3 @@ + [Overview](#overview) | ||
+ [Design Goals](#design-goals) | ||
+ [Non-Goals](#non-goals) | ||
+ [Discussion Points](#discussion-points) | ||
@@ -28,3 +29,3 @@ + [Polyfill](#polyfill) | ||
## Introduction | ||
## Background | ||
@@ -686,6 +687,10 @@ Reactive programming has become one of the most exciting programming paradigms of modern frontend development! While there continues to be varying opinions (and a high degree of polarization) as to what it is and what implementation makes the most sense, you'd realize that everyone is converging on one idea: **an automated approach to keeping something (b) in sync with something else (a), such that the expression `b = a` is held as a contract throughout the lifetime of the program**. | ||
## Non-Goals | ||
1. Feature "x" in framework "x". No, the idea with Subscript Functions is to enable reactivity at the lowest level but leave the higher-level details to userland libraries and frameworks. This time, tooling that's with just a tiny footprint but provide syntax sugars and additional DX. | ||
## Discussion Points | ||
+ **The syntax notation for Subscript Functions** - does the double star idea (`**`) work? | ||
+ (Addiontal points are acceptable via a PR.) | ||
+ (Additional points are acceptable via a PR.) | ||
@@ -724,3 +729,3 @@ ## Polyfill | ||
+ The cirrent polyfill only supports the constructable form of Subscript Function. | ||
+ The current polyfill only supports the constructable form of Subscript Function. | ||
@@ -727,0 +732,0 @@ ```js |
3699023
828