Gajus: can you do that.

Cornelison: Dekok: somehting slightly complicated, trying to fix this broken plugin “jquery cycle”

Starling: Twirl: sometimes, if things are complicated, it usually means you’re attacking the problem the wrong way : What is the problem you’re trying to solve? Maybe we can recommend you a simpler way of solving that

Measeck: I might have trashed the design of Mermaid at least 4 times because of this :’D

Demmy: Dekok: one of the sliders in my wordpress theme is broken on mobile devices, it’s using a plugin that sets the wrong CSS properties so elements don’t show up, i’m fixing it

Gertsch: Lets say you search on twitter: #x #y, its same as #y #x

Dethomas: Some problems are just complicated. idk if ***uming that you’re doing it wrong because the solution isn’t simple is always a good idea.

Dundas: Tcsc: I always ***ume I’m wrong, that way I’m forced to try thinking of alternatives. It does take more time, but I generally end up with better solutions by rethinking the problem, or the way I tried solving the problem

Helson: Perhaps not something you can do as easily if you have a deadline though. I don’t, in this case, so I can just spend all the time I need

Lozo: Trucchi: aliens who make green jellos

Josef: Poirot Sherlock here, clearly.

Arrojo: Django_: you split the terms, then search for each term individually. Of course, how to do the last part depends on how you’re storing/indexing your database.

Heimbigner: Hi, i have a DOM element in a variable the whole element and i need to select one of it’s children, how?

Tussey: Data, even. Not database.

Sewall: Twirl: “select”? One of its children?

Helf: Dekok: yea i need to change the CSS to it

Fessler: Some problems only have solutions that are complex. many problems in computational geometry are this way

Govindeisami: Twirl: do you really need to do that with JS?

Murrey: I’d just be wary of wasting your time trying to find a solution that doesnt exist.

Hun: Tcsc: well, thinking about the solutions is fun :

Chears: So I wouldn’t really call that “wasting time”

Bermel: Dekok: yea i don’t have a choice i didn’t write this plugin

Bason: Twirl: I mean, can’t you overwrite the CSS from the CSS itself?

Bouleris: Usually defining CSS rules is easier and cheaper

Heroth: Dekok: no i can’t there is no other way

Trucchi: Twirl: Dekok’s right that there may be a better approach, but you can find all of an element’s descendants based on criteria with element.querySelector and element.querySelectorAll depending on if you want all children or just one

Cap: Dekok: I went away an thought about what we talked. To enable dead code elimination, you’d still need to be explicit about what properties you are importing, i.e. import {map, filter} from ‘lodash’ because using import _ from ‘lodash’ provides no advantage over var _ = require’lodash’ in terms of detecting dead code.

Wakley: Twirl: Element.querySelector – Web API Interfaces MDN

Broas: Trucchi: maybe with jquery?

Pele: Gajus: since _ isn’t an object, you can figure out the dependencies from its projections. The projections happen to be exactly the same as the module bindings, unlike require, where the result is an object

Trucchi: Twirl: the way I just gave you doesn’t require jquery. Though if you’re already using jquery, you can do that instead

Ferrence: Gajus: it’s less trivial than just figuring from variables, of course, but doable.

Lupacchino: Dekok: What about runtime dependency resolution? e.g. ajaxMethodToGetRandomLodashFunctionNamename = { _name; };

Colecchi: It’s not possible with WebPack because they compile ES6 modules to CommonJS, I think. That way you lose all of the benefits of ES6 modules, and get none of the benefits of CommonJS :/

Canizares: Trucchi: yea i’m using jquery, how was it? .find’h2′ ? xD

Broody: Gajus: can you do that though?