Pre 1.0 Release Leftovers about absurdum HOT 11 CLOSED

Are we good to drop 1.0?

from absurdum.

I have exhaustingly reviewed the list of operators. Everything that should be included is included, everything that shouldn't be included isn't. The only exceptions are map/filter. Should these be removed as well?

IMO, the README.md could use some work. Remove the "Funky Name" and "What's the Point" sections. Maybe add a section explainer that talks about the functional nature of these components.

Also, I think the operators listing would look better as a table. Possibly with columns for polyfill and links to the lodash equivalent.

@jkvyff What do you think?

from absurdum.

By a polyfill column, do you mean the functions that would require a polyfill to be IE compatible?

from absurdum.

Functions that could be used as polyfills because they don't exist in IE11

Name it "Polyfills" then add a link to the function/method on MDN.

I have the table partway done. I'll ping you to check it out once it's ready.

from absurdum.

A few notes:

• Both map and filter seem to be kept in many other utility libraries, while they aren't so useful as they are methods already built into the language. I do believe they serve an important purpose in being one of the first methods someone looking at source could turn to when seeing what an implementation prioritizes through a simple example.
• Sounds good on the readme, ill do that today
• should documentation names be standardized more (eg. predicate, func | element, value)?

from absurdum.

• Cool
• Good point about map/filter. I was a bit conflicted b/c I've been in chopping block mode lately but I agree.
• don't worry about the operators table in the README.md. I'll have that done this afternoon.
• Yes, I wasn't sure if we should do this before or after 1.0. ITT, all the docs could use a good once-over to locate and fix any inconsistencies.

I'm trying to find a better JSDoc -> MD conversion tool so we have more control over the output and can support multiple example tags. ESDoc would be the most promising but the project is currently dead and I haven't received a response back from the maintainer so it's probably a dead end.

from absurdum.

Might be able to reach the ESDoc2 person, though project is about the same level of active.

from absurdum.

Probably not worth the time. I don't just need ESDoc, I would also need to finish building the Markdown output.

from absurdum.

I'm down to do a standardization of docs before 1.0, as it would still just be what is glaring for me.

Do:

• standardize terminology, as mentioned before
• fix typos or misspellings
• adding optional before optional parameter description

Delay:

• Rewordings of definitions for clarity
• Adding examples for each type of way to use function

from absurdum.

Sounds good to me. 1.0 can drop whenever we feel it's ready.

from absurdum.

1.0 Released 👍

from absurdum.