Woops. In execute it should be can_remove_link of course. 😃

Here's how the implementation of a command looks like:

This was possible thanks to browser vendors implementing the evolving Input Events Level 2 spec.

Thanks to everyone involved for putting in the work to get from "messy" (pre 2020) to "almost there" (today).

w3.org/TR/input-eve...

Congrats!

We’ll be there (Linz).

Context: github.com/michael/web-...

But Svelte feed is a good start, I didn't pin that one yet.

Haha! Good point, hehe.

See you! :))

Glad you like it! :)

And yeah, why not. Wanted to visit a Svelte meetup in Austria for the longest time. Would gladly present. Thanks for the invite!

Whoohoo!

You can install via npm into a new SvelteKit project.

Check: github.com/michael/sved...

(the github.com/michael/hell... repo is your starting point)

... but haven't studied all the engineering practices that come with types, and it can be a bit scary to look at TS Code for those folks.

So with JSDoc, users of EW can choose if they want to do full-on engineering with types and TypeScript tooling on, or go cowboy-style JS like in the old days. 🤠

... but I'm also working on a full-fledged Svelte app-template (editable.website v2). However, even here I think I'm going to go with "types as comments". Why? Because I want not-so-technical people to mess with the code, and I know a lot of people understand HTML and a bit of JavaScript...

Thank you for your thorough response, as a heavy user of both JSDoc & TS!

Didn't mean to play down the efforts of TypeScript folks, and I acknowledge there are different preferences.

I'm maintaining a library (svedit.dev) where JSDoc feels like the right fit...

Thank you @paolo.ricciuti.me for inviting me over!

Those are two separate topics.

I'm just debating the syntax part, maybe there are TypeScript folks who feel the same about that choice early on (JSDoc support came later).

Was it the right choice or a mistake?

Maybe TS folks know exactly why a new syntax has to exist — I'd like to know why.

Maybe. :)

And again, seeing that the TC39 propsoal suggests "Types // as comments" is another hint to me that .ts *was* a mistake, no?

tc39.es/proposal-typ...

The need for TSDoc is a symptom of a bad decision, no? For what you want to express to document code, inline type definitions are not enough anyways?