Adding Object Oriented Principles (OOP) to a functional codebase adds yet another way of writing code, reducing consistency and clarity.

Prettier intentionally doesn’t support any kind of global configuration. This is to make sure that when a project is copied to another computer, Prettier’s behavior stays the same. Otherwise, Prettier wouldn’t be able to guarantee that everybody in a team gets the same consistent results.

If this is okay, then it might even be nice if #dig took a block as well as a fallback value: [].dig(1) { 'default' } #=> "default"

It would be very nice if that was consistent across every application.

Knowing what your elements are lets browsers use sensible defaults for how they should look and behave. This means you have less customization work to do and are more likely to get consistent results in different browsers.

If set to true the UI of all input widgets (number, time, month, date, range) are replaced in all browsers (also in browser, which have implemented these types). This is useful, if you want to style the UI in all browsers.

When writing copy for buttons, make sure that you keep consistency.

I vote for calling it let Could be used like this {#let foo = initialValue}. It's closer to javascript

my second preference would be for let, probably #let expr as name for consistency with #each.

A style guide is about consistency. Consistency with this style guide is important. Consistency within a project is more important. Consistency within one module or function is the most important.

To be consistent with surrounding code that also breaks it (maybe for historic reasons)

About the argument against it, "{@const will make code less consistent ": I think the same is true now, since people can come up with very different ways of dealing with the "computed value inside each loop/if function" problem. Some extract components, some use functions, some will prepare the array differently beforehand.

it also allows for more divergence in how people write there code and where they put their logic, making different svelte codebases potentially even more different due to fewer constraints. This last point is actually something I really value, I read a lot of Svelte code by a lot of different people and broadly speaking things look the same and are in the same places.

We get a boilerplate-free API where shared state has the same simple get/set interface as React local state (yet can be encapsulated with reducers etc. if needed).

many CDNs nowadays ultimately source from npm (before caching the JavaScript on their own edge servers). So you'll be guaranteed to have the same library version on the CDN as on npm

Also Svelte is so great because developer do not need to worry about class names conflict, except of passing (global) classes to component (sic!).

For my point of view, and I've been annoyingly consistent in this for as long as people have been asking for this feature or something like it, style encapsulation is one of the core principles of Svelte's component model and this feature fundamentally breaks that. It would be too easy for people to use this feature and it would definitely get abused removing the style safety that Svelte previously provided.

maybe it can be a useful feature to keep consistency with the spread props

We don't want to treat it specially in certain contexts, and we don't want to silently convert a reactive variable into a store.

The above doesn't work for another unfortunate reason, it's not possible to write export let class = ''; instead CustomComponent because class is a reserved keyword and isn't allowed to be used as a variable name. The workaround would have to be to use some other prop name like maybe cssClass but then there's no "standard" by which all Svelte components can follow and every library will choose a different name which is cumbersome for users, because it creates scenarios like:

The primary motivation for this change is to have the same behavior between dom elements and wrapper components. Class directives are extremely convenient but that convenience is lost when a section of code needs to be converted to a component.

oh I'm fine with defective verbs. I'm not fine with inconsistency, though. Make it "Signup and login", and make it that on every SE page everywhere ever, and you can countin me.

“I came to Rust from Haskell, and I feel that Haskell is a very elegant and safe language. The biggest differentiator for me is that there is a greater difference between high-performance code and idiomatic ‘clean’ code in Haskell than in Rust. Most Rust code looks like most other Rust code, even when it performs well. Haskell can become unfamiliar real quick if someone is operating under different libraries and goals from what you are typically doing. Small differences in syntax can result in huge differences in behavior, and Rust has more uniformity on that axis.”

Enumerator::Lazy#eager is added. It generates a non-lazy enumerator from a lazy enumerator.

It also resolves the problems with private operator methods (self + bar) and compound assignments with private writers and/or private operators (self += bar, self.foo += bar, where either + or foo= or both are private). It removes pretty much all edge cases in one blow.

It does change it, but it makes it much simpler in my opinion. It is basically "the receiver is statically the explicit literal special variable self or implicit." This gets rid of the current exception for private writer methods (self.foo = bar).

I decided to use the same name to keep the consistence with the Set class and because it was also written like that in the Array code.

Set#intersection already exists and is an alias for Set#&, so there's precedent for such a method to exist.

one other thing I wanted to ask was about whether we should allow multiple arrays to be passed as arguments. Array#difference and Array#union both allow this, so it might make sense to have Array#intersection also take multiple arguments.

Arrays are not sets. Trying to treat them as if they are is an error, and will create subtle problems. What should be the result of the following operations? [1, 1] | [1] [1] | [1, 1] Of course, there are more interesting examples. These two are to get you started. I don't care what the results currently are. I don't care what you think they should be. I can present extremely strong arguments for various answers. For this reason, I believe that #| is an ill-defined concept. Generalizing an ill-defined concept is a world of pain. If you insist on treating objects of one class as if they were members of a different class, there should be bumps in the road to at least warn you that maybe this is a bad idea. I'm not going to argue that we should remove or deprecate #|. I don't think of myself as a fanatic. But encouraging this sort of abuse of the type system just creates problems.

What about introducing concat! with the same behaviour as concat and deprecating concat. Then we could in the feature give concat the behaviour it deserves. It is confusing as well that this method modify the object and I think we should fix this.

Finally, from a practical point of view, we suggest the adoption of "privacy label," food-like notices, that provide the required information in an easily understandable manner, making the privacy policies easier to read.

it confuses people — including functional programmers. This is because we don’t use it consistently.

Why would a company want to have one system for people in France, Germany, and Italy and a separate one for people everywhere else?

“It’s strange to say, ‘Yeah, we’re going to respect the privacy of Europeans more than all other human beings all over the world,’”

I always prefer strictness, bad behavior should be uncovered as soon as possible or you are effectively encouraging it, which means they'll soon be back asking why it doesn't work for X and Y. Fix the problem at the source. I don't really care, but IMHO doing this seems like a charitable thing but it's actually the opposite.

In a sense, the current behavior is the best behavior, because it never works, you will never get the impression that it does in React.

The theory says that in distributed systems everything is eventually consistent but the pragmatic view of the real world says that we need to be real careful on what we choose to make eventually consistent.

What's the stage your project is currently at?

“The role of the hospitalist often is to take recommendations from a lot of different specialties and come up with the best plan for the patient,” says Tejal Gandhi, MD, MPH, CPPS, president and CEO of the National Patient Safety Foundation. “They’re the true patient advocate who is getting the cardiologist’s opinion, the rheumatologist’s opinion, and the surgeon’s opinion, and they come up with the best plan for the patient.”

no data loss will occur as long as producers and consumers handle this possibility and retry appropriately.

By electing a new leader as soon as possible messages may be dropped but we will minimized downtime as any new machine can be leader.

keep in mind that these guarantees hold as long as you are producing to one partition and consuming from one partition.

Kafka consumer offset management protocol to keep track of what’s been uploaded to S3

.

and is consistent within itself.

I am wont to deal with princes as well as with private men