Closed fredemmott closed 4 years ago
Also, I don't think that :xhp
needs to exist as a distinct class to node
- it's only used as a holder for static functions, and as the base class for node.
I like x:node
and I think that it can replace XHPRoot
. I don't think XHPRoot needs to exist.
:xhp
doesn't really need to exist, but I do think it makes things like :xhp::disableChildValidation()
read more clearly. These are settings that impact all XHP classes and the class name makes that pretty obvious. :x:node::disableChildValidation()
would be a little more opaque.
Perhaps the static methods should move to be functions in the Facebook\XHP namespace?
or in those cases, in the Facebook\XHP\ChildValidation namespace we have for the trait-based approach
Yeah that'd work just fine too!
x:composable_element
(akax:node
in #247) is extended byx:primitive
andx:element
XHPRoot