Is there a good reason *not* to use a port for this? The difficultly level is very low, and t's a single js function call.
Also, don't even consider a native module at all. The general consensus is that native code isn't meant for the general Elm population, because it has the ability to absolutely break all guarantees that Elm initially promises. One main issue here is that Elm, being a functional language, needs a value returned after a function call. Sure, you could have something like `print : () -> Bool`, but that's not quite correct because you are adding extra meaningless data (ie passing a tuple and returning a bool, both unrelated to print). As a result, it's much better suited to be a Task (port function), since tasks don't return values, and there is no logical thing to return. >From personal experience, don't even consider native modules unless: 1. Elm does not have the ability to support the feature you want. 2. Sending a message to run a task makes performing the function awkward. 99% of the time for printing the screen, it's because the user is clicking a button on the page, and that's a super simple update from Elm. On Friday, 7 July 2017 03:39:40 UTC-4, Casper Bollen wrote: > > Is there an Elm way to implement window.print() without using a javascript > port? > -- 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.
