Cool, thx. Was curious a/b stability of proposal and chance of next bump, esp since others recently pushed through
-
-
I think we generally need to make some progress on decorators in general to make sure that the 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
expected solution for fields will actually work. 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
mostly that we have Stage 2 decorator proposals for new class features advancing.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
Ok. We really need to be more specific though. There's been a
@acemarke@dan_abramov1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lbljeffmo @wycats
concerning amt of intent to ship class features allornothing. Mitigating risk is good but cant avoid altogether. Need to ship somday
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lbljeffmo
I don't want to ship all-or-nothing, but too much of the current design actually depends on decorators.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
you mean pvt fields re: depends on decorators, right? Specifically: Hard v soft?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lbljeffmo
I'm uncomfortable with adding more declarative features if the decorator escape valve may never come.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I can try to do stage 2 for field decorators in March (baby due in Jan
) and take it from there.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.