package.json

[craigdallimore]

Hello!

I've noticed that there are two package.json files - one at /package.json and another at /repl/package.json.

I propose that this be reduced to 1 for the following reasons:

• all the npm run * commands can be found within one place.
• we reduce the number of duplicate packages that need to be downloaded (if there are any).

Furthermore I suggest that the npm-shrinkwrap.json (present in /repl, not in /) be moved to / and updated accordingly.

I'd be very happy to make these changes and update the npm scripts etc, if this proposal is accepted.

[buzzdecafe]

i gotta think it over a bit. I agree the current situation is bad; it's simply legacy from when the new repl got added. An alternative approach could be to manage the repl as a separate repo and include it (without devDependencies et al) at build time.

[craigdallimore]

Yep. I've been thinking along those lines too - it'd be nice to be able to reuse the repl for #95 in some way. Just off the top of my head, suppose we could do this on the Try Ramda page:

import repl from `some-ramda-repl-repo`;

const tryRamdaRepl = repl(document.querySelector('.repl-target'), {
  theme : 'dracula',
  controls : [
    'clear-input',
    'clear-output',
    'clipboard-input',
    'clipboard-output',
    'pretty',
    'share'
  ]
});

... and it will build the input / output, buttons etc as configured.

For the docs pages, focussing an example could instantiate a repl in place with perhaps minimal controls - e.g:

import repl from `some-ramda-repl-repo`;

...

document.body.addEventListener('focus', handleFocus);

...

function handleFocus(e) {
  if (e.target.classname === 'code-example') {
   repl(e.target, {
     destroyOnBlur : true
   });
  }
}

This should also make it easier for other people to inject ramda repls into external projects.

[buzzdecafe]

This should also make it easier for other people to inject ramda repls into external projects.

Yup. Or to run just the repl locally without needing the entire ramda.github.io. I think that is probably a better way to go

[MattMS]

(Regarding the first comment only) I'd like to add a 👎 to merging the REPL package.json with the main docs one, mainly because it would be mixing 2 fairly different packages.
That said, it seems the discussion has gone to making a separate repo, which I would give a big 👍 to.

Separating it into a package that could be included in other packages/sites would be excellent!

I'm afraid I haven't touched the REPL code at all, but I'm still happy to help out if needed.

[CrossEye]

This has grown into a pretty nice REPL, thanks to the hard work of a number of people. I think it would make sense to make it stand alone. Are people thinking of making it more configurable? I.e., right now it builds in Ramda, Ramda-Fantasy, and Sactuary -- would that list just be part of the configuration supplied to the stand-alone version?

[MattMS]

I've always dreamed of a CoffeeScript switch.

[CrossEye]

I have only played around with CoffeeScript and barely that much with TypeScript, Flow, ClojureScript, PureScript, or any of the other compile-to-JS systems. While I don't specifically object, it sounds like a lot of maintenance on something that seems fairly peripheral. But if there's someone very interested in working on it, far be it from me to interfere!

[buzzdecafe]

Let's go thataway

https://github.com/ramda/repl