Draft
Conversation
# Conflicts: # demos/BookstoreApp.res
cknitt
force-pushed
the
jsx-component
branch
from
23075f2 to
260ac71
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a draft change to an example to make component definitions more idiomatic / aligned to how we have been doing it in rescript-react. I.e. define a submodule with a
makefunction with labeled arguments as props and a@react.componentor@jsx.componentannotation.I only did it for the
ProductCardcomponent for testing, seemed to work fine.There are more changes in the file because it was not formatted for ReScript 12, and my editor has format-on-save on. 🙂