Stuck on an issue?

Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.

And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.

Discussion 1.0 release

See original GitHub issue

Ok I think it’s time we start a little shopping list of features we’d like to see in the 1.0 release of css-modulesify. Given the press CSS Modules are getting at present we should aim to keep this project inline what the JSPM and WebPack implementations offer, whilst leveraging what Browserify offers it’s uses as best we can.

At present there’s a few issues currently outstanding which contain feature requests and discussion around improvements to the css-modulesify architecture.

If there’s anything more people would like to see in this project, please feel free to file an issue. Just remember to ping this one so we can keep things in line.

/ping @joshwnj @joeybaker would love your input here! 😄

Issue Analytics

State:
Created 8 years ago
Comments:15 (12 by maintainers)

Top GitHub Comments

2reactions

rtsaocommented, Aug 31, 2015

IMHO dead code elimination should be a feature for 1.0: https://github.com/css-modules/css-modules-loader-core/issues/13

It seems to me that lack of dead code elimination is a barrier for production use of css-modules. For example, if a single class is composed from a css file containing 100 classes, all 99 unused classes are included.

0reactions

royriojascommented, Sep 3, 2015

@sullenor yes! I had too many of them, that’s why I made that small function. It is better an error than an "undefined" class added to the elemets