Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Class name composition is harder than it needs to be #601

Open
p-himik opened this issue Mar 8, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Class name composition is harder than it needs to be #601

p-himik opened this issue Mar 8, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@p-himik
Copy link

p-himik commented Mar 8, 2024

An example of what IMO the usage should end up with:

(defn grandparent [{:keys [class]}]
  [parent {:class [:parent class]}])

(defn parent [{:keys [class]}]
  [:span {:class [:child class]}])

(render [grandparent {:class :grandparent}])

Currently, this results in the class being ultimately set to "child [:parent :grandparent]".
So the users have to use r/class-names every single time they need to combine classes:

(defn grandparent [{:keys [class]}]
  [parent {:class (r/class-names :parent class)}])

(defn parent [{:keys [class]}]
  [:span {:class (r/class-names :child class)}])

(render [grandparent {:class :grandparent}])

Not too harde but harder than it can be.

Another problem with that approach is that the data is composed prematurely. When the "stringification" happens at the very edge of the rendering, the user code can still the full :class data structure as it was created by the app, including all the collections, keywords, strings, nils. Seeing that definitely helps with debugging. It also enables class collection preprocessing in some child component, although I'm hesitant do deem this particular usage as viable.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant