it happens because people really want to participate in the conversation, and that participation is more important to them than making a meaningful point.
That's simply not true. A loader can do whatever it wants. It translates the raw file contents into anything. Granted, at that point you'd might as well have the loader just be a traditional protobuf compiler, but the point still stands that this isn't an invalid solution.
No, I'm talking about compile time. A loader at compile time (e.g., for webpack) takes whatever your import path is and translates it into something that can be used by the JavaScript application.
It would be awfully silly to do this at runtime because typescript doesn't exist at runtime, which is sort of the whole point of the library.
I think you’re misunderstanding how this project works. The contents of that ?raw file are opaque to the typescript type system, it will see it as a `string`, not as the literal content of the file, therefore it cannot be parsed using template literal types as this project does and cannot be used to derive typescript types from protobuf files.
The loader proposal linked by the top level comment does not create strings, it imports them as the string literally type of their contents. That would absolutely 100% work with this project since the content of the imported file is available to the type system.
The reply with the typescript definition for ?raw is unrelated to this project and would neither solve the issue presently nor address it in the future. But if you implemented it in your bundler, it absolutely solves this problem exactly as described, because the imported file can have whatever boilerplate you want around it (like `as const`). This is something that exists and is usable today.
1. This whole subthread has been about the ?raw approach, not about a hypothetical feature that has not been agreed to yet.
2. Typescript runs before your bundler and has no idea what the bundler is doing, so any transformations you do there are invisible to it.
You keep telling me this is possible today, at this point I'd ask you to please prove it, because if it's true then that's very exciting and I have a bunch of use cases for it.
they will probably trickle this info out, the administration said that there was no classified information in the chats, so the atlantic are now free to publish these latest messages. The next step is for the administration to claim that there was nothing "operationally sensitive" in the messages, which will free the atlantic to release the next batch that contradicts that claim. Repeat.
The word feminist is also a hard one to pin down. SOme people define it as just meaning believing in equality - but in a society where that is the consensus view (its not true of every society, but it is where I most frequently come across the word) that has little meaning.
