| import React, { PropTypes } from 'react'; | |
| import { TransitionMotion, spring } from 'react-motion'; | |
| /** | |
| * One example of using react-motion (0.3.0) within react-router (v1.0.0-rc3). | |
| * | |
| * Usage is simple, and really only requires two things–both of which are | |
| * injected into your app via react-router–pathname and children: | |
| * | |
| * <RouteTransition pathname={this.props.pathname}> |
NOTE I'm trying to find the most optimal fav/touch icon setup for my use-cases. Nothing new here. Read Mathias Bynens' articles on re-shortcut-icon and touch icons, a FAQ or a Cheat Sheet for all the details.
I'd like to hear how you approach this: @valuedstandards or comment on this gist.
You have to include a boatload of link elements pointing to many different images to provide (mobile) devices with a 'favicon' or 'touch icon':
| { | |
| // http://eslint.org/docs/rules/ | |
| "ecmaFeatures": { | |
| "binaryLiterals": false, // enable binary literals | |
| "blockBindings": false, // enable let and const (aka block bindings) | |
| "defaultParams": false, // enable default function parameters | |
| "forOf": false, // enable for-of loops | |
| "generators": false, // enable generators | |
| "objectLiteralComputedProperties": false, // enable computed object literal property names |
Hello, visitors! If you want an updated version of this styleguide in repo form with tons of real-life examples… check out Trellisheets! https://github.com/trello/trellisheets
“I perfectly understand our CSS. I never have any issues with cascading rules. I never have to use !important or inline styles. Even though somebody else wrote this bit of CSS, I know exactly how it works and how to extend it. Fixes are easy! I have a hard time breaking our CSS. I know exactly where to put new CSS. We use all of our CSS and it’s pretty small overall. When I delete a template, I know the exact corresponding CSS file and I can delete it all at once. Nothing gets left behind.”
You often hear updog saying stuff like this. Who’s updog? Not much, who is up with you?
In React's terminology, there are five core types that are important to distinguish:
React Elements
| <!-- For non-Retina iPhone, iPod Touch, and Android 2.1+ devices: --> | |
| <link rel="apple-touch-icon-precomposed" href="apple-touch-icon-precomposed.png"> | |
| <!-- For the iPad mini and the first- and second-generation iPad on iOS ≤ 6: --> | |
| <link rel="apple-touch-icon-precomposed" sizes="72x72" href="apple-touch-icon-72x72-precomposed.png"> | |
| <!-- For the iPad mini and the first- and second-generation iPad on iOS ≥ 7: --> | |
| <link rel="apple-touch-icon-precomposed" sizes="76x76" href="apple-touch-icon-76x76-precomposed.png"> | |
| <!-- For iPhone with high-resolution Retina display running iOS ≤ 6: --> |
| (function (window) { | |
| var transitions = { | |
| 'transition': 'transitionend', | |
| 'WebkitTransition': 'webkitTransitionEnd', | |
| 'MozTransition': 'transitionend', | |
| 'OTransition': 'otransitionend' | |
| }, | |
| elem = document.createElement('div'); | |
| for(var t in transitions){ |
Every time I start a new project, I want to pull in a log function that allows the same functionality as the console.log, including the full functionality of the Console API.
There are a lot of ways to do this, but many are lacking. A common problem with wrapper functions is that the line number that shows up next to the log is the line number of the log function itself, not where log was invoked. There are also times where the arguments get logged in a way that isn't quite the same as the native function.
This is an attempt to once and for all document the function that I pull in to new projects. There are two different options:
I'm having trouble understanding the benefit of require.js. Can you help me out? I imagine other developers have a similar interest.
From Require.js - Why AMD:
The AMD format comes from wanting a module format that was better than today's "write a bunch of script tags with implicit dependencies that you have to manually order"
I don't quite understand why this methodology is so bad. The difficult part is that you have to manually order dependencies. But the benefit is that you don't have an additional layer of abstraction.
A lot of math grad school is reading books and papers and trying to understand what's going on. The difficulty is that reading math is not like reading a mystery thriller, and it's not even like reading a history book or a New York Times article.
The main issue is that, by the time you get to the frontiers of math, the words to describe the concepts don't really exist yet. Communicating these ideas is a bit like trying to explain a vacuum cleaner to someone who has never seen one, except you're only allowed to use words that are four letters long or shorter.
What can you say?
