People should implement sugar if they feel so inclined. Om is not mature enough that I want to spend time supporting extra stuff when the library is evolving so rapidly. Keeping docstrings and tutorials in sync and fielding questions is keeping me plenty busy :)
David On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Conrad Barski <[email protected]> wrote: > Is it wrong to wish "component" worked like this? > > (component (render [] > (div nil "Hello There!"))) > > (component (render-state [state] > (div nil "Hello There!")) > > (component (will-mount [_] > (js/console.log "mounting!"))L > (render [] > (div nil "Hello There!"))) > > ...I could see the appeal of the current "component" macro before > render-state was introduced... I can also see the appeal of using a raw > "Reify", but given that all the Om interfaces have a single member > function, having to write "IWillMount (will-mount [] ...))" etc is starting > to feel like java boilerplate > > (but maybe such a macro will interfere with other features that I'm > overlooking) > > -- > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "ClojureScript" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript. > -- Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ClojureScript" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
