FM / lib

/opt/canhelp/node_modules/tailwindcss/lib/lib/

/opt/canhelp/node_modules/tailwindcss/lib/lib

Name	Size	Mode	Actions
cacheInvalidation.js	3030	0644	edit dl rm
collapseAdjacentRules.js	2152	0644	edit dl rm
collapseDuplicateDeclarations.js	3595	0644	edit dl rm
content.js	9933	0644	edit dl rm
defaultExtractor.js	10469	0644	edit dl rm
evaluateTailwindFunctions.js	9429	0644	edit dl rm
expandApplyAtRules.js	23088	0644	edit dl rm
expandTailwindAtRules.js	11706	0644	edit dl rm
findAtConfigPath.js	1988	0644	edit dl rm
generateRules.js	38472	0644	edit dl rm
getModuleDependencies.js	2923	0644	edit dl rm
load-config.js	1616	0644	edit dl rm
normalizeTailwindDirectives.js	3640	0644	edit dl rm
offsets.js	12658	0644	edit dl rm
partitionApplyAtRules.js	1474	0644	edit dl rm
regex.js	1933	0644	edit dl rm
remap-bitfield.js	2792	0644	edit dl rm
resolveDefaultsAtRules.js	6538	0644	edit dl rm
setupContextUtils.js	57992	0644	edit dl rm
setupTrackingContext.js	8324	0644	edit dl rm
sharedState.js	2195	0644	edit dl rm
substituteScreenAtRules.js	1063	0644	edit dl rm

Edit: /opt/canhelp/node_modules/tailwindcss/lib/lib/remap-bitfield.js (2792B)

// @ts-check
/**
 * We must remap all the old bits to new bits for each set variant
 * Only arbitrary variants are considered as those are the only
 * ones that need to be re-sorted at this time
 *
 * An iterated process that removes and sets individual bits simultaneously
 * will not work because we may have a new bit that is also a later old bit
 * This means that we would be removing a previously set bit which we don't
 * want to do
 *
 * For example (assume `bN` = `1<<N`)
 * Given the "total" mapping `[[b1, b3], [b2, b4], [b3, b1], [b4, b2]]`
 * The mapping is "total" because:
 * 1. Every input and output is accounted for
 * 2. All combinations are unique
 * 3. No one input maps to multiple outputs and vice versa
 * And, given an offset with all bits set:
 * V = b1 | b2 | b3 | b4
 *
 * Let's explore the issue with removing and setting bits simultaneously:
 * V & ~b1 | b3 = b2 | b3 | b4
 * V & ~b2 | b4 = b3 | b4
 * V & ~b3 | b1 = b1 | b4
 * V & ~b4 | b2 = b1 | b2
 *
 * As you can see, we end up with the wrong result.
 * This is because we're removing a bit that was previously set.
 * And, thus the final result is missing b3 and b4.
 *
 * Now, let's explore the issue with removing the bits first:
 * V & ~b1 = b2 | b3 | b4
 * V & ~b2 = b3 | b4
 * V & ~b3 = b4
 * V & ~b4 = 0
 *
 * And then setting the bits:
 * V | b3 = b3
 * V | b4 = b3 | b4
 * V | b1 = b1 | b3 | b4
 * V | b2 = b1 | b2 | b3 | b4
 *
 * We get the correct result because we're not removing any bits that were
 * previously set thus properly remapping the bits to the new order
 *
 * To collect this into a single operation that can be done simultaneously
 * we must first create a mask for the old bits that are set and a mask for
 * the new bits that are set. Then we can remove the old bits and set the new
 * bits simultaneously in a "single" operation like so:
 * OldMask = b1 | b2 | b3 | b4
 * NewMask = b3 | b4 | b1 | b2
 *
 * So this:
 * V & ~oldMask | newMask
 *
 * Expands to this:
 * V & ~b1 & ~b2 & ~b3 & ~b4 | b3 | b4 | b1 | b2
 *
 * Which becomes this:
 * b1 | b2 | b3 | b4
 *
 * Which is the correct result!
 *
 * @param {bigint} num
 * @param {[bigint, bigint][]} mapping
 */ "use strict";
Object.defineProperty(exports, "__esModule", {
    value: true
});
Object.defineProperty(exports, "remapBitfield", {
    enumerable: true,
    get: function() {
        return remapBitfield;
    }
});
function remapBitfield(num, mapping) {
    // Create masks for the old and new bits that are set
    let oldMask = 0n;
    let newMask = 0n;
    for (let [oldBit, newBit] of mapping){
        if (num & oldBit) {
            oldMask = oldMask | oldBit;
            newMask = newMask | newBit;
        }
    }
    // Remove all old bits
    // Set all new bits
    return num & ~oldMask | newMask;
}