We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
It makes sense to clearly define the contract signature before beginning work on TypeOn.
TypeOn
If possible make backward compatible.
Consider this use case wherein the query results in more than one element (loop).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
FYI - This is an easy task.
Sorry, something went wrong.
I wonder if Shake and TypeOn should return an instance of neodigmUtils or a collection of effected elements?
Shake
neodigmUtils
Not sure that I agree with the premiss that we should pass in an element reference. It seems like its breaking established norms.
Decided not to make this backward compatible, I don't think that it should except an element. Its too much trouble for the implementation coder (DX).
The chaining works like this:
neodigmUtils.shake( "#js-hearts" ).shake( "#js-clubs" ).shake()
I am going to close this shortly, but based on the description of the task, I may mark it "not fixing", or whatever.
This issue is resolved in v3.1. No doc changes needed.
No branches or pull requests
It makes sense to clearly define the contract signature before beginning work on
TypeOn
.If possible make backward compatible.
Consider this use case wherein the query results in more than one element (loop).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: