Martin Muñoz

Awesome. I came to the same conclusion after several months of using `scan!("hello {}").0` in my own library -- supporting singular values is just way more ergonomic!

@nrc Should it be `"hello {} {}"` in your third line? Or am I misunderstanding.

Another thing that comes up often is scanning individual characters. E.g. I'd expect that for the input string `"123"`, ```rust let (x: char, y: u8) = scan!("{}{}") // x ==...

### Current ``` javascript PUSHER_SUBSCRIPTIONS: { my-channel: ['pusher:subscription_succeeded'] } ``` ### Proposed ``` javascript PUSHER_SUBSCRIPTIONS: [ { channel: "my-channel", events: ['pusher:subscription_succeeded'] } ] ``` - Attach array observers to `PUSHER_SUBSCRIPTIONS`...

@jamiebikies Ya, totally agree.

As a workaround I believe you can temporarily intercept the constructor with a global monkey patch like this. ```js const FORM_ASSOCIATED_ELEMENTS = ['my-input', 'my-select']; const define = customElements.define; customElements.define =...

I prefer slice events over enter/exit per item. You may have to do your own range arithmetic to diff slices, but it seems more powerful.

That said, sliceDidChange implies that the slice is contiguous, but layouts like shelf-first may reorder the items? Seems like we just want a notification + a way to query the...

I'm thinking an event that passes you a function you can call to ask the layout for the items, e.g. `event.getItems()`

We've decided to commit to supporting 1.13. In particular, we will backport fixes to 1.13 if necessary (or inline the fix if its minor). See #7.