To me it makes it clear what’s a string literal and what’s not.
Of course, there’s no reason for binding overhead in this case. When something
is a constant, there’s no reason why the compiler couldn’t just automatically
replace it with the value. Is there?
> On Jan 23, 2017, at 7:19 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> That reminds me: it has always bugged me that the compiler makes you
> write:
>
> <fa:FontAwesomeIcon iconType="{FontAwesomeIconType.TWITTER}" />
>
>
> (which sets up a binding), instead of just:
>
> <fa:FontAwesomeIcon iconType="FontAwesomeIconType.TWITTER" />
>
> Can anyone think of a reason the compiler shouldn't allow that?
>
> Also, maybe more into the future, maybe the constants should be considered
> of type FontAwsomeIconType, which would essentially be like an enum.
>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
>
