You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We introduced the with abstraction when we realized there was a common pattern across logo (logo files), color (color palette) and typography (fonts). Upon implementing the spec, @cscheid and I realized that fonts are sufficiently different from files and the color palette that they don't fit the with abstraction (see #3).
With only two fields supporting with, it's worth reconsidering. While I like the abstraction, I think color.palette is significantly easier to explain and understand than color.with and I think this is a strong reason to consider switching back to palette instead of with.
That leaves logo.with as a singleton, which could be renamed images without changing the implementation (in theory).
We introduced the
with
abstraction when we realized there was a common pattern acrosslogo
(logo files),color
(color palette) andtypography
(fonts). Upon implementing the spec, @cscheid and I realized that fonts are sufficiently different from files and the color palette that they don't fit thewith
abstraction (see #3).With only two fields supporting
with
, it's worth reconsidering. While I like the abstraction, I thinkcolor.palette
is significantly easier to explain and understand thancolor.with
and I think this is a strong reason to consider switching back topalette
instead ofwith
.That leaves
logo.with
as a singleton, which could be renamedimages
without changing the implementation (in theory).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: