>
> This is our convention:
>
> 1) Core modules;
> 2) Public modules from elm-lang;
> 3) Other public modules;
> 4) Project modules.
>
This is the approach I take too. I guess it fits into John's "from general
to specific" principle. Other than that I don't pay it much thought. I try
to keep my li
Haha funny this question popped up here now.
Yesterday I was implementing a "sort imports" feature for elm-light (Elm
plugin for Light Table). I was pondering the same thing.
Ended up implementing it like this:
- Project modules first (sorted alphabetically)
- The External modules sorted alphabet
I really wish elm-format re-ordered imports so that I didn't have to care
and it'd be consistent internal to my project and across community projects
that use elm-format.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm
Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this
Good question to raise! The lack of any logic in my own imports had on
occasion nagged me too.
This is our convention:
>
> 1) Core modules;
> 2) Public modules from elm-lang;
> 3) Other public modules;
> 4) Project modules.
>
The one @Simone Vittori suggests looks simple and workable.
--
You r
At my company we have our own conventions, which are always good to have I
think, even though the order doesn't really matter in this case.
This is our convention:
1) Core modules;
2) Public modules from elm-lang;
3) Other public modules;
4) Project modules.
Anyway I see you mentioned List and
I list them all together, alphabetically. This way I don't spend time
internally debating the most logical order when adding an import, and it
gives me fast human lookup times when I need to scan the imports.
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 7:54:35 PM UTC-4, John Bugner wrote:
>
> Is there a "
