Andreas Svensson

@bmeck Sure, but not in any meaningful way right, you cannot access these completion values other than via eval...? So AFAIK they only seem to exist for the purpose of...

Sorry, my mistake. Updated reply below: 😄 And if it is those completion value semantics you're piggy-backing on then I don't see how it would work in practice. ```jsx let...

Also, trying to transpile adjacent completion values in this way sounds like a proper nightmare if you ask me, not to mention the runtime performance overhead (hmm, perhaps it isn't...

Ok, now I get what you're getting it. Took me a while. There's also the problem of textnodes: ```jsx Foo Bar ``` `Foo` and `Bar` would try to compile as...

> Absolutely not, for loops have a single completion value. I do not want to change completion value semantics. I don't see the merit of completion value semantics for JSX,...

@bmeck Hmm, after thinking about it a bit more I think I'm starting to see what you're getting at. But I'm not sure what real-life problem you would really be...

@bmeck ```jsx render() { if (this.state.invalid) { {this.state.invalid.text} } } ``` Is actually super-weird to me now that I think about it. It creates a fragment, where message becomes combined...

Unless it has been changed (don't think so), then you should use `dangerouslySetInnerHTML` with style for React, not provide a string child. But to the point, with ES6 the solution...

> My use case: a library that exports attribute names for use on elements that may change between dev and production builds and should be applied dynamically, but where you...

@sebmarkbage Yep, I explored that idea a bit in #4. To me it makes perfect sense to drop HTML-entities and not pretend that JSX is HTML, JSX is great for...