Placeholder Default about grunt-bake HOT 5 OPEN

Hi @k-funk,
sorry for the delay, I've been away from the computer over the last week. This is a pretty known scenario and could actually be used in conjunction with transforms pretty nicely, much like you said. But the implementation won't allow it.

I wonder if we can find a way without ruining the the current intended behavior. I think in the transforms chain, we could allow them on falsy values such as undefined. The _if would only receive the value after transformations, which is still undefined if you don't change that. So it would not break current behavior.

@david-zacharias What do you think. Am I missing something?

from grunt-bake.

I am not sure I think we may get trouble with the feature that leaves code in place (removeUndefined set to false). To make that work each transform must check if undefined is given and return it untouched. We should avoid the need for people to change existing transforms... Unfortunately I have not much time at the moment for testing this.

from grunt-bake.

Maybe now's a good time to start thinking about labeling feature-requests for 2.0.0

from grunt-bake.

I've been thinking about this. I would still love to have a way to supply a default value for variables. One thing that came to mind was the way a lot of people do it in JS: var foo = bar || 14, which would give you 14 in any scenario where bar is falsey, which thanks to the genius of JS is a crazy gray area. 😞

<div>
    Hello {{ name || "new user " }}
</div>

This wouldn't even break the transforms chain:

<div>
    Hello {{ name || "new user" | toUpperCase }}
</div>

What are we thinking. Is the syntax confusing with the single and double pipe?

from grunt-bake.

Hi all!

Unfortunately I have not much time at the moment, so just brief feedback:

I would go for @k-funk idea of a default-transform. I think we will find a way to make that work in version 2. This is less confusing I think.

from grunt-bake.