[Ur] ANNOUNCE: uru - the jQuery widget wrappers with a demo

Fri Oct 11 07:01:31 EDT 2013

> Can't you implement it as an FFI library, so that folks know when they're
> explicitly including it?  I consider it a feature, not a bug, to make this
> functionality a little hard to implement or include. ;)

OK, l'll rewrite it as a blessScript function. Looks like it is really
the best solution for the moment. And here I have a question about
nested libraries. Does Ur/Web handle situation where several libraries
(A,B,C) uses same library D (all three have `library D' directive) and
the master project includes them all (A,B,C and D)?
For example, when I make BlessScript.urp, I will want to use it in
both uru library (currently, uru is not a library, but a set of *urs,
but I plan to turn it into libray) and in master project. Will I be
able to do it by simply listing BlessScript in both Uru.urp and
App.urp?

> Do you have a suggestion of good places to link to publicize such tools on
> the Ur project site?

Sure, I think it would be nice to place the link under the
http://www.impredicative.com/wiki/index.php/Libraries_and_FFI_bindings
(I plan to turn uru into a library) but wiki also has
http://www.impredicative.com/wiki/index.php/Ur-based_Projects which
also match. Since both pages contains not too much items, what do you
think about merging them into one page? Also, since it is one of the
first thing user wants from wiki (at least , it was so for me), what
do you think about moving all the links from both pages to the main
wiki page to a separate section below others?

Also, I have a problem with NivoSlider control, since it requires
$(window).load() event handler, and <body onload=..> happens too
early. Authors suggest using
<script>
$(window).load(function() { ... nivo_slider_init(); .. });
</script>
So I used an ugly hack. I can wrap it in FFI together with
blessScript, but just in case I miss something: Do we have a better
way of calling things like this right now?

Regards,
Sergey

PS
Just noticed that blessScript is not the best name, because the
function wouldn't have corresponding compiler-side blesser. But what
do you think about introducing `allow script' directive? I probably
can handle it if it is not that hard.