Dale Bustad

There are a couple of reasons for this. React [doesn't support](https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/1035) conditional comments or `doctype` tags, and it looks like that's not something that will change. If you need to...

@aickin, re this: > but it's not totally clear from the docs if this will work or not: ``` const renderer = template`${ {render()} }` ``` I doubt that'll work...

`number * number * number` is definitely better. However: > seeing that defining a const is a statement of "this won't change" It's a bit more nuanced than that. `const`...

I'm definitely used to double-quotes at this point, but I don't think it should be a sticking point for anybody, whichever way we go with it. 100% we should standardize...

Here's a comparison of the two compilation outputs of a simple component: Today's compiler output: ```javascript 'use strict'; Object.defineProperty(exports, '__esModule', { value: true }); var lwc = require('lwc'); const $fragment1...

@nolanlawson I'm not sure how we'd go about fixing this. Calling `instance.delete()` is entirely valid, so I don't discount the use case here. However, the expression `() => delete("foo")` is...

This seems like a reasonable idea! It may require a bit of a refactor - let me take a look at this and get back to you.

It strikes me that new syntax may not really be necessary for this, when a helper function could provide the same functionality: ``` javascript const $ = (fn, ...args) =>...

You're right, of course @Alxandr. Thanks! Serves me right for commenting without testing. In any case, it seems that the bind operator alone, without the proposed parameter substitution syntax, could...

That's fair, although the proposed syntax change would de-sugar to something similar (with a Babel transform) until support landed natively. If you want to avoid the spread operator or anything...