How to compose async results?
Check out GitHub - bloodyowl/rescript-future: Cancellable futures for ReScript
View ArticleClik here to view.
[Feedback] Preserve JSX mode
I created a test app with npx create-rescript-app, switched to rescript v12 and replaced react with solidjs. The first impression is very promising. The app compiled without problems and solidjs could...
View Article[Feedback] Preserve JSX mode
And one other thing. For some reason the generated res.jsx files still contain the JSX include: import * as JsxRuntime from "react/jsx-runtime"; even though the include is not used anywhere.
View Article[Feedback] Preserve JSX mode
Glad to hear some progress is made! Thanks for diving back into it. Is spreading props common in Solid? I guess what’s going on here in terms of ReScript is that JSX props are represented as records,...
View Article[Feedback] Preserve JSX mode
Thanks for playing with this @Fattafatta! We are tracking JSX preserve mode: unused import of "react/jsx-runtime" · Issue #7433 · rescript-lang/rescript · GitHub already.
View ArticleHow to compose async results?
Thanks everybody! I really liked @zth pattern and Futures look really interesting too! I’ll test those solutions, but I already like them more than my composeK
View ArticleModule types for multi-argument functors
Hi all, I have a module function of multiple arguments (simplified here), where the second argument depends on the first.: module Example = (A : {type t}, B : {let x : A.t}) => { ... } In reality,...
View ArticleAnyone using graphql-ppx and rescript-apollo-client with 11?
Hi jfrolich. Is team walnut still committed to a rescript release of graphql-ppx that supports uncurried? We have been unable to use certain community libraries that are now using Core and uncurried.
View ArticleModule types for multi-argument functors
I figured out one workable solution on my own, but I’d still be interested in others’ opinion. My solution was to define a module types like so: module type AType = { type t } module type A_BType = {...
View Article[Video] Building a snake game with KAPLAY
I made another video on this:More ReScript and Kaplay Exploring the published bindings Getting started | Rescript Kaplay bindings, a Flappy Bird clone and Rewatch!
View ArticleModule types for multi-argument functors
@liamoc If I’m not mistaken, what you’re actually looking for is this: module Example = (A: AType, B: BType with type t = A.t) => { ... }
View Article[Feedback] Preserve JSX mode
Were you able to verify if the other issues you’ve had now works?
View ArticleAnyone using graphql-ppx and rescript-apollo-client with 11?
I have a PR for graphql_ppx that fixes support for rescript-apollo-client + uncurried here Fix Uncurried Fragment module signature by illusionalsagacity · Pull Request #297 · teamwalnut/graphql-ppx ·...
View ArticleTilia approaching 2.0 release, feedback welcome
Hi everyone, I just finished setting up the website for tilia: tiliajs.com. For those not in the know, it is a state management library written in ReScript for TypeScript and ReScript. A lot of work...
View ArticleModule types for multi-argument functors
No, that’s not the same. In my case, the module B doesn’t define a type t, but in your case it must.
View ArticleModule types for multi-argument functors
Well you have to, otherwise how would you define a relation between A and B?
View ArticleModule types for multi-argument functors
In this case, it seems that B has a value of type A.t, rather than containing a definition of t itself.
View ArticleModule types for multi-argument functors
The module type for B will need an abstract type in order to have something to substitute, but the substitution can be destructive so that the module doesn’t have to define it: module type B = { type...
View ArticleModule types for multi-argument functors
Indeed I was missing glennsl technique, with this you can have: module type AType = { type t } module type BType = { type t let x: t } module Example = (A: AType, B: BType with type t := A.t) => {...
View Article[Feedback] Preserve JSX mode
I just checked and it looks like the problem with the lower case component names is gone (custom components would result in different code than a standard component created with jsx.component). All...
View Article