Tim Routowicz

What you are saying does make total sense, what I was proposing was nothing more than a convenience method. I was considering the use case where a module may have...

Added the `compose` utility method.

@ericelliott ~~Thoughts on deep merging React static props at composition? We would exclude `defaultProps` due to perf [reasons](https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/2568).~~ ~~So this feature would apply to:~~ ~~\* contextTypes~~ ~~\* childContextTypes~~ ~~\* propTypes~~...

@ericelliott Merged PR #2, composition should be pretty much fully functional for React. Let me know if you see anything missing or have other ideas!

Sounds great! You're welcome, I'm glad they were accepted.

:+1: Good idea. Hopefully I can start this over the weekend, been quite busy. It'd be great to get some of the early react-stampit hackers in on this as well.

I am definitely on board with automatically setting `displayName`. Feel free to propose changes in a PR.

I guess I'd like to see an example of why this change would be useful. We can already test if the stamp is a valid React component using React's test...

``` js import stampit from 'stampit'; Object.prototype.stampit = stampit; Object.prototype.isStamp = stampit.isStamp; let StampA = { myMethod() {}, myState: "a state", static staticVar: "static var", init({instance, stamp, args}) { ......

You wanted stampit built into the language... stamps are objects. :)