Andreas Svensson

@jrajav I was commenting on the two different ideas presented separately. ``` ``` Anyway, both are fine, I even proposed switching to the first one early on, IMHO the most...

> It is more that there isn't a non-ugly way to apply local symbols to an element without repetition. There are only two alternatives: @jrajav Yeah, if that's what you...

I would be interested in having a real story for comments e.g. #7. `{/**/}` feels like a hack, and kind of also is as it affects the children when used...

Also, having an actual syntax for fragments would be a very welcome feature (e.g. the previously talked about ``).

@jasonslyvia That's what fragments are for.

See facebook/react#1389 regarding pointer events, it seems they _might not_ become standard. While there is some downright horrible browser behavior for certain events (especially touch/mouse) that could hopefully be improved...

> I definitely get your concern. My ambition may be that I think React is uniquely poised to show browser engineers the superiority of PointerEvents (best case scenario) from a...

2+4; it seems weird to allow `continue` here but not `return` inside the do-expression. Surely they're conceptually the same thing? If you allow `return` then it's in a sense weird...

> I assume that return inside of do would return from the outer function - not just break out of the do-expression. That's what's confusing and controversial. So I think...

> Maybe they should be implicit immediately invoked generator functions? @sebmarkbage Something along those lines makes most sense to me, having to allocate the array and return it is what...