You just proved the author's point. The JSX you provided is invalid, since you can't pass `for` as a function argument (see his equivalent bit about `if`).
Huh. Well, my only defense is that I would never even try to write JSX like that anyway - the actual JS in my JSX templates is basically just Array.map calls.
Re:JSX is no longer my friend
by supernintendo on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @04:42PM
(#11292815)
Generally speaking, I do not recommend this pattern. My preference is to handle enumeration within a function, for example:
<ul>
{this.listItems(items)}
</ul>
listItems: function(items) {
items.map((item) => {
return <li>{item.name}</li>
});
}Is it just me, or is the return missing in the `function` (or am _I_ missing something :)?
Not important of course, just pointing it out...
Re:JSX is no longer my friend
by supernintendo on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @06:51PM
(#11293668)
Good catch! I wrote that example in a hurry on my lunch break so I take accountability for the mistake.
If you omit the {} you can then also omit the return.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Referen...
True but irrelevant, the GP is talking about the top level function, not the fat arrow one.
Guess I was also in a hurry!
That shouldn't work since syntactically you are in a middle of a function call where you can only have expressions. This is funny because one of the author's point was that JSX makes that confusing because you would never think to write `callFunction(for (var i = 0; ...))` normally.
EDIT: turns out that doesn't actually work, ha. I've never written JSX that way.
on the other hand...