On 1/22/17, 10:58 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
<omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 9:19 PM, 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?
>>
>
>What is the advantage of writing it like this? I mean, to the end user.
Well, we allow arrays to be put in without binding:
foo="['some', 'array', 'of', 'strings']"
But Harbs might have a better idea where the compiler doesn't create a
binding expression. The advantage to the user is that they don't have to
remember to use {} binding and their code is smaller and faster without
the binding setup.
>
>
>>
>> Also, maybe more into the future, maybe the constants should be
>>considered
>> of type FontAwsomeIconType, which would essentially be like an enum.
>>
>
>That sounds like a lot of work for over 500+ icons. Again, what would be
>the advantage?
Some sort of Enum-like concept sets up a set of allowed values so I can't
assign "Om" or "Alex" to the icon type.
-Alex
