Thanks everyone! Hey Max! I appreciate the feedback, I've updated the readme with your suggestions ++ some additional notes.
And some additional descriptions for the elm-package documentation will be there later today :) You make a good point about renaming `Style.Model`, though I'm going to think about it for a bit. The recommendation is for style to live in its own file, so it might not be a big issue. On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:42:29 PM UTC-5, Max Goldstein wrote: > > Hi Matt! I looked at the documentation and these are my thoughts. > > > - The last example has the Title line twice. Copypasta? > - It looks like this only works well if Style is imported as a (..) > import. I think you make a good case for this usually-discouraged feature. > However, I think best practice would be to keep the stylesheet definitions > in their own module with no other (..) imports, and expose only the > rendered stylesheet and Class type. If you agree, maybe add this to the > README? > - You should document the types defined at the top of the > documentation. What the heck do these represent? Maybe there's a better > name for Model since that's normally something the application author > defines as part of TEA (The Elm Architecture). > - Maybe it would be helpful to see the rendered CSS for the > definitions in the README? > > Overall, great work! > -- 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.
